I am curious as to what your sources are though.....I've read so much rhetoric on this issue it's hard to know what to believe and what is BS. My inclination is that there are equal amounts of BS on both sides of the argument.
Here are the articles that I used for the write-up on the elections and their effects:
S.F. Chronicle/L.A. Times ??? ???Kurds allow Norway firm to begin drilling for oil??? ??? 12/1/05
In a way I think the Americans simply have to stay now that they've started the invasion. I know my opnion might upset some of you but the troops are the only who, at least, make the county a bit secure for the public. If they leave all hell will break loose.
I'm totally against the war but now that it's started I don't think withdrawl is an option.
That's the problem that a lot of people have to wrestle with. Will it be better or worse if the U.S. pulls out. You also have to consider this, is it getting worse right now with the U.S. already there? Whether the U.S. stays or goes, in my opinion it's not going to be good in Iraq. And personally, I don't think the U.S. troops make it a bit secure for the public in Iraq. In fact, U.S. soldiers are a target of attacks so being around them is actually more dangerous than not being around them. Not only that, but there was a study by an international medical group that found that 87% of Iraqis killed by violence were actually killed by Americans, mostly U.S. air power, not the insurgents.
I see your point. BTW Do you have a link to the study you mention?
You know, I don't keep links to anything these days. I just print stuff out or cut it out. I've got a whole cabinet full of clippings and articles.
That being said, this is where I got the report from and can give you a few more details.
The article was from Tomdispatch.com which is done by Tom Engelhardt of the Nation Institute. The article was "Tomgram: Dahr Jamail on the Missing Air War in Iraq" from 12/13/05.
The study was done by a British medical journal called Lancet and released in October 2004. It actually estimated that 85%, not the 87% I quoted, of all violent deaths in Iraq were by coalition forces, mostly U.S. air strikes.
A culture that ... kills based on religious beliefs and use a holy book as a guidebook for war is certainly difficult to co-exist with in 2005.
Come on now Rock. There is plenty of information about Bush's new found religious faith out there. I was raised a Christian, and this fool is an abomination of everything I believe in.
Getting the Words Wrong
President Bush uses religious language more than any president in U.S. history, and some of his key speechwriters come right out of the evangelical community. Sometimes he draws on biblical language, other times old gospel hymns that cause deep resonance among the faithful in his own electoral base. The problem is that the quotes from the Bible and hymnals are too often either taken out of context or, worse yet, employed in ways quite different from their original meaning. For example, in the 2003 State of the Union, the president evoked an easily recognized and quite famous line from an old gospel hymn. Speaking of America's deepest problems, Bush said, "The need is great. Yet there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people." But that's not what the song is about. The hymn says there is "power, power, wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb" (emphasis added). The hymn is about the power of Christ in salvation, not the power of "the American people," or any people, or any country. Bush's citation was a complete misuse.
On the first anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush said at Ellis Island, "This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind???. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness has not overcome it." Those last two sentences are straight out of John's gospel. But in the gospel the light shining in the darkness is the Word of God, and the light is the light of Christ. It's not about America and its values. Even his favorite hymn, "A Charge to Keep," speaks of that charge as "a God to glorify"???not to "do everything we can to protect the American homeland," as Bush has named our charge to keep.
just one of the first articles that came up in a google search.
Rob
So is this is a culture, or as some would see it, one lunatic who's out of control??
Comparing Al Quaeda, Islamic fundamentalism and the likes, to the brand of Christianity practiced by 99.9% of the Christians in America(including yourself I assume) is pretty absurd.
Not being a Christian, I have no problem accepting Bush's statements at face value, as opposed to interpreting them via bible passages. That doesn't mean I agree with them.
I guess the question that this begs is, why, if Bush is the evil maniacal bloodthirsty christian fundamentalist many make him out to be, did the majority of politicians across party and religious lines support his actions to go to War in Iraq and not pull out when given the opportunity.
One thing you won't see me do is pull quotes and paragraphs from the Internet to try to make a point. Biased opinions can be found everywhere, so all I can do is form MY OWN opinion based on what I see and hear directly from the mouths of those taking and living these actions.
I'm just a simple man with simple questions based on logic and common sense.
I have simple questions like...
Were there more innocent Iraqi citizens killed in 1995 or 2005??
If there are things like genocide, torture and murder taking place in mass in a country, who, if anyone, has the right or responsibility to try to stop it??
Do Islamic fundamentalists have a goal of killing all non-Muslims who do not convert to Islam??
Does Bush's Christian Fundamentalism call for the death and/or abuse of all non-white Christians.
These really aren't political questions, they are black and white, right vs. wrong questiions.
I've formed my opinion based on everything I've seen and I'll choose to be on the side of the American, christian based, Isreal supporting folks who have good intent but fuck up more often than not, instead of the Islamic, Jews must die, America(Christians and Democracy) is the Great Satan, all infidels must die crazies.
It may be the lesser of two evils, but that last choice is pretty much a no brainer to this simple minded man.
And for the record, I don't blindly agree with or hate George Bush and his actions. But it does appear that 90% of Americans fits into one of those two categories.
I don't claim to know any of the answers, but I refuse to self loath or criticize without a 100% understanding of what's really going down....and I believe very few folks can claim to have this understanding....I might be 50% there.
Motown67 is one person who I applaud for trying to look at just facts and beyond political hype/bias. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna sit back and take his posts as the gospel(no pun intended)and not have questions of my own.
If that makes me appear to be stupid(or worse)...so be it.
After being called "The new Vitamin" recently I assumed it was an insult. I did some research and read a bunch of the past debates he was involved with, and compared to the majority here, the guy seems very articulate and someone who scratches below the surface of the issues at hand. In other words, it was a compliment, and one that I don't think I could live up to.
Rockadelic, refusing to face facts does not automatically make them false. You're claiming ignorance and arguing against those who've educated themselves in the same breath. You can't have your cake and eat it too. (While on the topic of cliches, please refrain from typing "begs the question" in reference to a question you wish to ask. That's not what the phrase means. Thanks. -Soulstrut Grammar Police)
there will be ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from certain areas as is now going on in the Kurdish north.
I didn't know about this. Do you have a link?
99 sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. Like I just said in the previous post, I don't keep links but I can cite some recent news articles that I have about the Kurds, mostly dealing with Kirkuk.
New York Times - "Kurds Are Flocking to Kirkuk, Laying Claim to Land and Oil" 12/29/05
Knight Ridder - "Kurds in Iraqi army proclaim loyalty to milita" 12/27/05
Knight Ridder - "Many Iraqi soldiers see a civil war on the horizon" 12/27/05
Washington Post - "For Kurds, A Surge Of Violence In Campaign" 12/14/05
LA Times - "Kurds allow Norway firm to begin drilling for oil" 12/1/05
Washington Post - "Kurds Reclaining Prized Territory In Northern Iraq" 10/30/05
Washington Post - "Militias Wresting Control Across Iraq's North and South" 8/20/05
Der Spiegel - "Is the Country Heading for Civil War?" 7/25/05
SF Chronicle/Washington Post - "U.S. memo tells of abductions of Kirkuk minorities" 6/15/05
SF Chronicle/New York Times - "Iraq's top leaders voice approval of Kurdish, Shiite militias" 6/9/05
SF Chronicle - "Kurds, Shiites agree to resolve fate of Kirkuk" 3/11/05
Time Magazine - "Revenge of the Kurds" 3/7/05
SF Chronicle - "Divided Kirkuk a rich political prize" 1/27/05
I guess the question that this begs is, why, if Bush is the evil maniacal bloodthirsty christian fundamentalist many make him out to be, did the majority of politicians across party and religious lines support his actions to go to War in Iraq and not pull out when given the opportunity.
Well that one's pretty easy to answer actually.
1) The Bush administration lied and exaggerated the threat that Iraq posed and said that it was connected to Al Qaeda and terrorism when it wasn't. You can read about what they lied about here in a piece I wrote up:
2) Despite the Bush administration's claims that Congress had the same intelligence that the Bush administration had, that's simply not true. The Congress got 2 documents right before the vote for war to basically go on. One was the secret National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which had to be read in a secret room. Most members of Congress never read it. The second was the White Paper on Iraq released a few days later. Other than that, if a congressperson wasn't on an intelligence or armed forces committee they had those two documents, the newspaper and the Bush administraiton to base their decision to go to war on.
3) The Bush administration made a great public relations campaign to win the public over to their side and beat down any politician as being soft on terrorism if they didn't support the war. Remember, this was when the Bush administration had convinced the majority of the public that Iraq was connected to 9/11, which it wasn't. There were a few Democrats like J. Biden and J. Lieberman who supported the war from the beginning but disagreed with the tactics that the Bush administration was using like not forming a real coalition against Iraq, but the rest of the Democrats basically got brow beat into supporting the war so they woulnd't look like they were against fighting terrorism. That's on them, and they continue to pay for it in half assed public statements about how they supported the war but now don't because they didn't know enough, or whatever kind of excuse they can come up with.
I don't know where you get the idea that the U.S. or Congress could've pulled out U.S. troops from Iraq however. That only just became a major topic of debate because one Congressman who is a war vet and very close to the military came out and challenged the Bush administraiton about when the U.S. is going to leave. Otherwise there has been no serious plan or vote on pulling out U.S. troops in Congress.
Do Islamic fundamentalists have a goal of killing all non-Muslims who do not convert to Islam??
No. There are some violent Islamist groups, and some non-violent ones. Some of Bin Laden's top aides are against Sunnis killing Shiite Muslims. Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, wants to create a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites and calls Shiites apostates, not true believers.
I think you need to spend some time reading about Islam and Islamic fundamentalism before you start making these kinds of statements even if they're to create a dichotomy to make a larger point because they are way off base like your earlier comment that Muslim societies are somehow fundamentally violent and disfunctional.
I've formed my opinion based on everything I've seen and I'll choose to be on the side of the American, christian based, Isreal supporting folks who have good intent but fuck up more often than not, instead of the Islamic, Jews must die, America(Christians and Democracy) is the Great Satan, all infidels must die crazies.
It may be the lesser of two evils, but that last choice is pretty much a no brainer to this simple minded man.
I don't support Islamic fundamentalism either, but the vast majority of people we're fighting in Iraq are NOT Islamists. Studies vary, but basically only 3-10% of the insurgents in Iraq are foreign fighters and Islamic terrorists. Most of the insurgents are former Baathists who want to return to power, Sunni tribal groups, criminals, poor people out of work who get paid for every attack they make, and a small, but growing number of Sunnis who are nationalists.
It's part of the Bush administration's public relations campaign to justify the war by talking about Iraq being the frontline in the war on terrorism and always talking about Zarqawi and Al Qaeda in Iraq every time there are attacks in Iraq. It makes it look like everyone we're fighting is a foreign fighter and we're actually doing something against Al Qaeda there, when in fact, we're not doing much. Invading Iraq has actually been a boon for Al Qaeda and Islamists rather than a set-back.
Questioning The Bush Administration???s Claims About Iraq[/b]
One of the only things that the Bush administration has been able to do right on Iraq until the middle of 2005 was to win the hearts and minds of the American public on the necessity of the war. This strategy was based upon just a few basic assumptions that were repeated again and again by Bush and others in speech after speech. It wasn???t until recently that any of these assumptions were challenged, and many still aren???t today. Here???s a basic run down of the Bush argument for fighting in Iraq.
Point 1: American must fight terrorism in Iraq so we don???t have to fight terrorism at home.[/b]
While it???s true that the U.S. needs to fight terrorism abroad to stop another 9/11 in the U.S. that doesn???t mean that we???re not being attacked. Many people think that just because there hasn???t been another attack within the U.S. since 9/11 that we???re winning the war on terror somehow. However the bombings in England, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia and most recently Jordan show that our friends are being attacked at home all the time. No Americans were being killed in Iraq or by Iraqis until we invaded the country. Now on average, one American is being killed a day. If this statement means that Americans need only worry about an attack on the U.S. then they are being misled about the war on terrorism. Dick Cheney said in September 2003, ???Our military is confronting the terrorists, along with our allies, in Iraq and Afghanistan so that innocent civilians will not have to confront terrorist violence in Washington or London or anywhere else in the world.??? Well guess what Dick, civilians in London and other countries have had terrorist attacks since Iraq. It???s not an either or situation.
Point 2: The U.S. most focus upon Iraq because it???s the central front in the war on terror.[/b]
Iraq wasn???t a base or a supporter of terrorism against the U.S. before the Iraq war. Now, it is. There are terrorist camps in western Iraq, there are 700 attacks a day against U.S., allied and Iraqi forces. Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, partially thanks to his large and dramatic bombings, and partly because the U.S. plays him up so much, has become one of the most famous Islamic terrorists in the world since the invasion. Before the war, he was basically an unknown to many. The attack on Iraq also supports Bin Laden???s claims that the U.S. is out to destroy Muslim societies and occupy their countries, drawing more supporters to his cause. A whole new generation of Muslims has also been radicalized by the U.S. invasion. One example is the Madrid bombers who were not members of Al Qaeda nor radical and violent Islamists before the invasion. The attack on Iraq radicalized them and they drew inspiration from videos and public statements made by Bin Laden on the topic. That led them to come up with a terrorist plan that killed hundreds of civilians, toppled the Spanish government, and led to the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. Not only that, but only 3-10% of the insurgents in Iraq are actually foreign terrorists. The vast majority of insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis who are not Islamists.
Point 3: The U.S. military is making Iraq safer.[/b]
The insurgency has grown in strength every year. The number of attacks against U.S. forces has gone up every year. The number of civilians killed by both the insurgents and the U.S. military has increased each year. For the entire first year of the occupation, the Pentagon tried to ignore the insurgency. For the second year of the occupation they finally admitted that there was an insurgency but had no coordinated plan to fight it. Only at the end of 2005 has the U.S. come up with a real counterinsurgency plan, which is hinged on very questionable Iraqi security forces taking over when the real fighting is finished by U.S. soldiers. The levels of lawlessness and general crime is also worse now then under Saddam. According to polls conducted by the U.S. government in early 2005, the Iraqi people do not feel safer under U.S. occupation. In fact, the majority say they feel unsafe when U.S. forces patrol their neighborhoods because it will probably lead to attacks by insurgents. It???s hard to see how things are better now then before if you live in Iraq. Basically the Iraqis went from one bad situation, living under Saddam???s dictatorship, to another, living under an incompetent U.S. occupation.
Point 4: The U.S. is helping with Iraqis political transition from dictatorship to democracy.[/b]
Yes, the U.S. overthrew a horrible dictatorship under Saddam Hussein. Yes, there have been elections in Iraq. However the simple process of voting has not led to a civil society that values Iraq as a unified country. Rather the votes have increased the religious and ethnic divisions within the country. The Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South, because they came in 1st and 2nd in elections feel they have the political backing to create their own autonomous spheres of influence. Many want their own separate countries, or a Shiite led government that will dominate their former oppressors the Sunnis. The Sunnis on the other hand boycotted one election and participated in the last one in large numbers, but are still being shut out of the political process, thus fueling the insurgency.
Point 5: U.S. forces must remain in Iraq to train Iraqi security forces.[/b]
All this talk about training Iraqi security forces was basically all bullshit until very recently. It wasn???t until late 2004 that the U.S. finally gave training the Iraqi security forces the money that it needed. There are still not enough trainers nor people that speak Arabic to effectively train the Iraqi army. Not only that but the incorporation of various Shiite and Kurdish militias into the security forces causes all kinds of religious and ethnic tensions, plus basic command and control problems in the country rather than solving them. The police forces are even worse than the army. In December of 2005 the U.S. announced a plan to incorporate thousands of U.S. soldiers within each Iraqi police unit to stop their torture, abuses and death squad activities, but how this will work has not been laid out. Regular U.S. troops can tell an Iraqi not to beat someone or put a bullet in their head, but how are they to teach Iraqis police work or instill in them a sense of national and civic pride rather than loyalty to their militias? No one knows.
I guess the question that this begs is, why, if Bush is the evil maniacal bloodthirsty christian fundamentalist many make him out to be, did the majority of politicians across party and religious lines support his actions to go to War in Iraq and not pull out when given the opportunity.
Rock,
It is important to remember that politicians are in the perception business. Democrats are often perceived as being weak on Defense issues (even though we dropped the atomic bomb, started the cold war, Korea and Vietnam). Most Dems figured that it was not worth the perceived risk to vote against the war in Iraq(which was generally popular amongst the American public at the time). This explains for example why John Kerry, in the heat of a primary battle, would vote against the infamous 80 billion dollar military apropriations bill even though it would hurt his chances of winning the presidency. The fact is that at the time Howard Dean was steamrolling the field with a hard anti-war campaign. Kerry felt he had to vote against the apropriations bill to win the nomination. Politics is tricky. Add bad work by the CIA/NSA (really an abandonment of its core responsibilities) and the White Houses' very cunning manipulation/lying on certain issues, all of which made voting for the resolution a no brainer for any Dem not in a lock seat.
If you think this seems cynical I would invite you to examine the records of the two most likely nominees for both parties in the upcoming 2008 election. Hilary Clinton since being elected to the Senate has taken an extremely hawkish position on the War on Terror. Her positions fly in opposition to everything we know about her politics before gaining a Senate seat, which for the 30 years were staunchly traditionally liberal. How is this possible? Well, Hilary would like to President and understands well that she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of gaining the nomination much less the big prize without an extreme policy makeover. So she is moving rightward. BTW Hilary voted for both the War resolution and the 80 billion. She even warned Kerry that voting against the bill would come back to haunt him.
Sen. McCain is also an interesting character. He ran for the presidency in 2000, narrowly losing to Bush after a vicious smear campaign in South Carolina derailed his candidacy. So how does one make sense of the fact that McCain very actively campaigned for Bush (who he truly despises) in 2004? The simple answer is he is going to run in 2008. He needs the party leadership's support to have a chance at winning and he knew he would curry favor by helping Bush. I encourage you to look closely at his voting record and foreign policy positions as the 2008 campaign approaches. Even though he is right of right on most issues (abortion, taxes and the war on Terror), he will campaign as a tough but caring moderate (read "campassionate conservative"). Sound familiar? Well, get ready. Do not be fooled but what he says (or how the media portrays him), look deeply at what he does. If people are interested I can do a more detailed write up on his voting record.
Lastly Rock I gather from your posts that you are somewhat torn about the war on terror. You see suicide bombings and the insurgency in Iraq and wonder what he hell is up with the fundamentalist Muslims. But as an isolationist you don't like getting involved. I think we made a fundamental mistake in how we viewed the growing Islamic terrorist threat. By overreacting we have spread the seed of disenchantment, widening the scope of the jihad and linking groups that did not have a single focus before. I think eventually this problem will slowly subside as the economics of the region changes, forcing people to work more closely to together. This is ultimately what made it possible for Jordan to make peace with Israel. In the end their is just no money in a war between the west and the middle east.
I guess the questions that cross my mind the most are these.....
If we left Iraq, didn't fuck with S. America, N. Korea, or anyone else in the Middle East. Cut all ties with these folks including the purchase of oil, removed all Military and Corporate personnel and discontinued all trading of goods....
1) Would we be closer to World Peace??(Which is what I assume ALL folks want) 2) Would all the killings, genocide, terrorism and violence that we used as an excuse to go Iraq, and has been happening elsewhere, come to an end???
and if not
3) Who's responsibility would it be to try to MAKE it come to an end?? 4) Or do we just accept that this is the way of life in 2005?
That is why I asked what the solution might be...I certainly have no clue, but I'm betting there is no easy solution, and that ANY possible solution would have it's critics.
In some ways you have answered your own question. You say you are "not a globalist" (or rather more accurately you are an isolationist in the classic sense). This is a devilish position for any nation much less a superpower to take. Without effective relationships with other nations or the willingness to pursue national interests (economic, political and the like), it is likely that we will find ourselves in a chaotic and very unfriendly world. Some nation will exert itself on these fronts. So for example, in the case of Iran and North Korea, it is not a question of whether we will get involved to deal with their nuclear aspirations but how. Leaving these two nations free to do whatever they please is simply irresponsible and dangerous.
To my mind, involvement on global politics is a given, it is only the manner and focus that must be chosen. As Motown has so effectively pointed out, Iraq is a blunder of epic proportions. One that truly may haunt us for a generation. The amount of money, lives and rippling geo-politcal problems we face because of it are breathtaking. Just a quick example, Iran is currently pursuing an aggressive program to build a nuclear weapon. Why? Because we have troops on its border and it cannot stop us from overrunning them conventionally. Our President has identified them as an axis of evil. In their leaderships' judgment an atomic deterent is the only viable option for stopping an invasion if we decided to go that direction. So one outcome of the war on terror (specifically the invasion of Iraq) has been to escalate the development of nuclear weapons in the region.
Lastly, I have no idea how we should proceed in Iraq. I think that it is likely that Iraq will break into pieces particularly around the Kurdish issue. If that happens, who knows what the outcome will be. This was the BUSH SR argument against unseating Saddam after the first Gulf War. Sadly, his son chose not to heed his father's sage example. I hope I have not come off as condescending in all of this. If I have offended in anyway please let me know. I agree with you that we need to listen to one another with respect and open minds.
Mo, I just want to thank you for so succinctly putting together the timelines and the various data on the progression of the war. It really makes it obvious how badly this thing has been handled and how badly it is going to go for the foreseeable future. For a little historical perspective, I would encourage people to read the Pentagon Papers or Frances Fitzgerald's "Fire in the Lake" which detail our similar missteps in Vietnam 40 years ago.
Do Islamic fundamentalists have a goal of killing all non-Muslims who do not convert to Islam??
Does Bush's Christian Fundamentalism call for the death and/or abuse of all non-white Christians.
These really aren't political questions, they are black and white, right vs. wrong questiions.
By the way, that's not even the message of Bin Laden nor of any Islamic groups that I've studied closely (those being Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, and Algeria).
One of the basic claims of the modern Islamist movement is that Islam and the Muslim countries have been corrupted by western ideas and living such as capitalism, communism, secularism and consumerism. Plus most Muslim countries are ruled by dictatorships and have proven weak against Israel. They want to end this corruption by returning to a mythical Islamic form of government, which they claimed existed in the past. They don't care about converting people. It's about fixing what's wrong with people who are already Muslims, by getting rid of their governments.
Bin Laden's specific message is that the U.S. is the reason why these corrupt governments exist and therefore Islamists need to attack the U.S. Since most of these governments from Morocco to Egypt in North Africa, to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in West Asia to Indonesia in East Asia are all U.S. allies, it wasn't that hard of an argument to make and prove to people.
The 9/11 attacks were suppose to propel Bin Laden into the leadership of the world Islamist movement and make others join him, which is basically what happened.
Iraqi Elections And The Break-Up Of The Country[/b]
In mid-December Iraq held elections for parliament. Political commentators, newspapers and the Bush administration lauded the elections as a sign of progress in Iraq and a further step towards stabilizing the country and planting the seed of democracy. A closer examination of how the elections were conducted, who people voted for, and the political battles over forming a new government show that rather than bringing the country together, the elections only highlighted the deep divisions within the country and the move towards a break-up of the country.
Iraq???s Elections[/b]
Political commentators and the Bush administration congratulated Iraqis on conducting elections for the country???s parliament in mid-December. The mere fact that people voted however, does not show a growth of democracy.
First, on the positive side, for the first time since the U.S. invasion, thousands of Sunnis voted in the elections. U.S. officials were able to broker a cease-fire with the leading Sunni insurgents and tribal leaders to stop violence during the election. There were reports of insurgents actually guarding voting stations in the country.
Those positive results were overshadowed by how the elections were conducted.
In northern Kurdish Iraq, the 2 main Kurdish political parties carried out coordinated attacks on the offices of an independent political party, the Sunni Arab Islamic Union party. Offices were destroyed and people were shot and killed in gun battles outside. There were also reports of the 2 main Kurdish parties shutting out smaller Kurdish political parties.
In the South there was voting fraud, attempts to influence voters and Iranian interference.
Iraqi border police captured a truck from Iran full of thousands of forged ballots made out for the 2 main Shiite religious parties. The driver said that other trucks had already gone through into Iraq.
The 2 main Shiite religious parties also received money and weapons from Iran where many of their leaders once lived in exile and where one of their militias, the Badr Brigade, was trained.
There were also reports of Shiite dominated police units driving around cities urging people to vote for the Shiite religious parties, Shiite soldiers and police voting more than once, and threats against voters if they didn???t vote the right way.
Because of these actions 60 political parties have threatened to boycott Iraq???s new parliament and some have even called for new elections. The Shiites have dismissed these complaints as those of the losers in the elections.
Sunnis have said if their complaints are not met, they will return to violence and the insurgency.
Forming A New Iraqi Government[/b]
Analysts have pointed out that voting wasn???t the most important part of the December elections, rather the negotiations for a new government were the most important step in Iraqi???s future. The early negotiations and fights for power show the continued divisions within the country however.
Because the Shiite religious parties did better than expected they only need to form a coalition with one political party that holds 10-20 seats in parliament to form a new government. The Shiites have shown no desire to work with Sunnis however, which means they could be further shut out of Iraqi politics, thus continuing the insurgency.
Already, leading Shiite and Kurdish officials met in northern Iraq in late December to discuss forming such a government without including any Sunnis.
Break Up Of Iraq[/b]
More importantly the elections further the break-up of Iraq. Both the leading Shiite and Kurdish parties have called for their own autonomous zones in Northern and Southern Iraq. Kurdish officials have openly told American newspapers that they expect Iraq to break up into three separate countries eventually. One top Kurdish official told Knight-Ridder, ???I see us moving towards the end of Iraq.???
It???s ironic, that the Sunnis are one of the only groups that voice the concerns of the Bush administration. The leading Sunni political parties have called for the unity of Iraq, are opposed to the independence of Kurdish Iraq, and warn against the Iranian influence in the Shiite political parties.
In the north, the Kurds are moving towards more and more independence already.
In November 2005 the Kurds signed a contract with a Norwegian firm to drill for oil without consulting Baghdad. The central government felt that this was a violation of the new constitution, but the Kurds said they could do what they wanted in their own zone of influence.
More importantly the Kurds are trying to expand their borders southwards into areas where they were not many Kurds before the U.S. invasion, increasing violence and ethnic tensions.
The main focus of the Kurdish effort has been the oil rich city of Kirkuk, but the Kurds also have plans for Mosul and a few other majority Arab cities.
Under Saddam the Iraqi government forced Kurds out of the city of Kirkuk and replaced them with Arabs as part of an Arabization program. Since then the Kurds have laid claim to the city as theirs. However Kurds were never a majority there. The last accurate census was taken in 1957 and showed that Turkmen were the largest group. Under Saddam Arabs became the majority. That hasn???t stopped the Kurdish plans for the city.
More than just past grievances, Kirkuk also offers the Kurds economic independence since it has so much oil in the area.
A U.S. officer told the New York Times that since the U.S. invasion anywhere from 85,000-350,000 Kurds had moved into Kirkuk and the neighboring area. There are also reports that the Kurds have forced out Arab families from the city. This is all part of the Kurds plan to take over the city in 2007.
When a new Iraqi constitution was drawn up in mid-2005 the Kurds were able to insert an article that set up elections for Kirkuk in 2007. The elections will decide whether Kirkuk will continue to be ruled by Baghdad or be taken over the Kurds. Their plan is to flood the city with Kurds so they win control of the city. Already Kurds have taken over the local government and police.
More threatening is the fact that all the major Iraqi army and police units in the area are majority Kurd, containing thousands of Kurdish militia fighters called Peshmerge. In late December 2005, Knight-Ridder conducted interviews with these soldiers who told them they followed the Kurdish parties rather than the central government and that they were all Pashmerge. For example, the 2nd Iraqi Division which overseas the Irbil-Mosul area is 90% Kurdish.
This has led to increased tension and violence in the city. Already there have been over 30 assassinations from October to December 2005 of Arabs and Turkmen in the city.
Kurdish soldiers and officials also said that they wanted to include Mosul and the surrounding cities into the Kurdish area. None of these cities however, have a large Kurdish population.
Again and again, Kurdish soldiers and officials said that they would try diplomacy to get these cities, but if it came down to it they would fight for them.
In the south, the Shiites have the same aspirations. Right after the elections a leading Shiite politician told the Christian Science Monitor that one of their top priorities was creating their own autonomous region.
To solidify their hold the Shiite political parties have taken over the police forces and many army units in central and southern Iraq. This is leading to increased conflicts with the U.S. because the Shiite units are carrying out kidnappings, assassinations, beatings and death squad activities against Sunnis.
Beginning in November, the U.S. began trying to rest control of the Interior
Ministry, who control the police, from the Shiites but not only have they failed, but it is increasing Shiite distrust of the Americans.
In mid-November, U.S. forces raided a series of secret prisons where Shiite police were torturing Sunnis. Since then more prisons have been found. The U.S. military and Bush administration were putting increasing pressure on Prime Minister Jaafari to clean up the police, but to no avail.
In the end of December, the U.S. military announced a new plan where they would begin embedding thousands of U.S. trainers and soldiers into Iraqi police units to try to clean them up. Of course, this overlooks the fact that the U.S. still does not have enough trainers to do the work with the Iraqi army right now.
Not only that, but with the Shiite political parties doing better than expected in the December elections, they show no willingness to give up their control or listen to the U.S. on this issue.
So what should be done??? Specifics???
The guy that needs to answer those questions is currently stinking up this joint...
I think you need to spend some time reading about Islam and Islamic fundamentalism before you start making these kinds of statements even if they're to create a dichotomy to make a larger point because they are way off base like your earlier comment that Muslim societies are somehow fundamentally violent and disfunctional.
Thanks for all of your efforts....I think I'm a very typical American whereas I don't know or understand alot about other countries and cultures. And "statements" don't end with ???
I guess the question that this begs is, why, if Bush is the evil maniacal bloodthirsty christian fundamentalist many make him out to be, did the majority of politicians across party and religious lines support his actions to go to War in Iraq and not pull out when given the opportunity.
Rock,
It is important to remember that politicians are in the perception business. Democrats are often perceived as being weak on Defense issues (even though we dropped the atomic bomb, started the cold war, Korea and Vietnam). Most Dems figured that it was not worth the perceived risk to vote against the war in Iraq(which was generally popular amongst the American public at the time). This explains for example why John Kerry, in the heat of a primary battle, would vote against the infamous 80 billion dollar military apropriations bill even though it would hurt his chances of winning the presidency. The fact is that at the time Howard Dean was steamrolling the field with a hard anti-war campaign. Kerry felt he had to vote against the apropriations bill to win the nomination. Politics is tricky. Add bad work by the CIA/NSA (really an abandonment of its core responsibilities) and the White Houses' very cunning manipulation/lying on certain issues, all of which made voting for the resolution a no brainer for any Dem not in a lock seat.
If you think this seems cynical I would invite you to examine the records of the two most likely nominees for both parties in the upcoming 2008 election. Hilary Clinton since being elected to the Senate has taken an extremely hawkish position on the War on Terror. Her positions fly in opposition to everything we know about her politics before gaining a Senate seat, which for the 30 years were staunchly traditionally liberal. How is this possible? Well, Hilary would like to President and understands well that she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of gaining the nomination much less the big prize without an extreme policy makeover. So she is moving rightward. BTW Hilary voted for both the War resolution and the 80 billion. She even warned Kerry that voting against the bill would come back to haunt him.
Sen. McCain is also an interesting character. He ran for the presidency in 2000, narrowly losing to Bush after a vicious smear campaign in South Carolina derailed his candidacy. So how does one make sense of the fact that McCain very actively campaigned for Bush (who he truly despises) in 2004? The simple answer is he is going to run in 2008. He needs the party leadership's support to have a chance at winning and he knew he would curry favor by helping Bush. I encourage you to look closely at his voting record and foreign policy positions as the 2008 campaign approaches. Even though he is right of right on most issues (abortion, taxes and the war on Terror), he will campaign as a tough but caring moderate (read "campassionate conservative"). Sound familiar? Well, get ready. Do not be fooled but what he says (or how the media portrays him), look deeply at what he does. If people are interested I can do a more detailed write up on his voting record.
Lastly Rock I gather from your posts that you are somewhat torn about the war on terror. You see suicide bombings and the insurgency in Iraq and wonder what he hell is up with the fundamentalist Muslims. But as an isolationist you don't like getting involved. I think we made a fundamental mistake in how we viewed the growing Islamic terrorist threat. By overreacting we have spread the seed of disenchantment, widening the scope of the jihad and linking groups that did not have a single focus before. I think eventually this problem will slowly subside as the economics of the region changes, forcing people to work more closely to together. This is ultimately what made it possible for Jordan to make peace with Israel. In the end their is just no money in a war between the west and the middle east.
I guess the questions that cross my mind the most are these.....
If we left Iraq, didn't fuck with S. America, N. Korea, or anyone else in the Middle East. Cut all ties with these folks including the purchase of oil, removed all Military and Corporate personnel and discontinued all trading of goods....
1) Would we be closer to World Peace??(Which is what I assume ALL folks want) 2) Would all the killings, genocide, terrorism and violence that we used as an excuse to go Iraq, and has been happening elsewhere, come to an end???
and if not
3) Who's responsibility would it be to try to MAKE it come to an end?? 4) Or do we just accept that this is the way of life in 2005?
That is why I asked what the solution might be...I certainly have no clue, but I'm betting there is no easy solution, and that ANY possible solution would have it's critics.
In some ways you have answered your own question. You say you are "not a globalist" (or rather more accurately you are an isolationist in the classic sense). This is a devilish position for any nation much less a superpower to take. Without effective relationships with other nations or the willingness to pursue national interests (economic, political and the like), it is likely that we will find ourselves in a chaotic and very unfriendly world. Some nation will exert itself on these fronts. So for example, in the case of Iran and North Korea, it is not a question of whether we will get involved to deal with their nuclear aspirations but how. Leaving these two nations free to do whatever they please is simply irresponsible and dangerous.
To my mind, involvement on global politics is a given, it is only the manner and focus that must be chosen. As Motown has so effectively pointed out, Iraq is a blunder of epic proportions. One that truly may haunt us for a generation. The amount of money, lives and rippling geo-politcal problems we face because of it are breathtaking. Just a quick example, Iran is currently pursuing an aggressive program to build a nuclear weapon. Why? Because we have troops on its border and it cannot stop us from overrunning them conventionally. Our President has identified them as an axis of evil. In their leaderships' judgment an atomic deterent is the only viable option for stopping an invasion if we decided to go that direction. So one outcome of the war on terror (specifically the invasion of Iraq) has been to escalate the development of nuclear weapons in the region.
Lastly, I have no idea how we should proceed in Iraq. I think that it is likely that Iraq will break into pieces particularly around the Kurdish issue. If that happens, who knows what the outcome will be. This was the BUSH SR argument against unseating Saddam after the first Gulf War. Sadly, his son chose not to heed his father's sage example. I hope I have not come off as condescending in all of this. If I have offended in anyway please let me know. I agree with you that we need to listen to one another with respect and open minds.
Great stuff....and unfortunately confirms my feelings that ALL politicians suck. Thanks.
Do Islamic fundamentalists have a goal of killing all non-Muslims who do not convert to Islam??
Does Bush's Christian Fundamentalism call for the death and/or abuse of all non-white Christians.
One of the basic claims of the modern Islamist movement is that Islam and the Muslim countries have been corrupted by western ideas and living such as capitalism, communism, secularism and consumerism.
From what I understand these "Western Ideas" also include Music, Films, Promiscuity and acceptance of non-heterosexual lifestyles. We're their version of Sodom & Gomorrah.
(While on the topic of cliches, please refrain from typing "begs the question" in reference to a question you wish to ask. That's not what the phrase means. Thanks. -Soulstrut Grammar Police)
Dude are you the same guy that monitors my Ebay ads and sends me an email everytime I spell a word wrong???
I think the big question that I have a hard time with is one I posed earlier that no one has tried to answer.
If a country or countries are experiencing genocide, mass killings, abuse and terrorism does anyone have the right or responsibility to try to end it??
My first inclination is that this is why we have the U.N. but based on what's gone on around the world I don't see them accomplishing much.
Even with the current Iraq invasion figures, the statistics that I find shows that the U.S. is responsible for less than 5% of all the religious/political "murders" that have taken place around the world in the last 20 years.
Is it our or anyone elses responsibility to stop these "murders" at any cost, or do we just accept that this is the way of the world and if you happened to be born in one of these places where violence rules the day you're just SOL?
I think the big question that I have a hard time with is one I posed earlier that no one has tried to answer.
If a country or countries are experiencing genocide, mass killings, abuse and terrorism does anyone have the right or responsibility to try to end it??
My first inclination is that this is why we have the U.N. but based on what's gone on around the world I don't see them accomplishing much.
Even with the current Iraq invasion figures, the statistics that I find shows that the U.S. is responsible for less than 5% of all the religious/political "murders" that have taken place around the world in the last 20 years.
Is it our or anyone elses responsibility to stop these "murders" at any cost, or do we just accept that this is the way of the world and if you happened to be born in one of these places where violence rules the day you're just SOL?
Rock,
I don't think there is an easy answer to your above question. In fact, the answer differs depending on your interests, resources and values. In recent years there have been successful interventions to stop genocidal conflicts (Kosovo) and more commonly glaring cases where genoicide was allowed to continue unabated (Rwanda, Darfur, East Timor). Of course, no one is in favor of genocide but the reasons for a nation state to stand against it are very complicated. Remember that America did not enter WW II because of the Holocaust. Jews had a very difficult time entering the US prior to our entry into the war. On many occassions Roosevelt refused requests to redirect bombing campaigns in Germany toward rail lines that would have stopped the exportation of Jews to death camps and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. He was aware of what was happening yet decided it was not a priority. (The memos detailing these requests are prominently displayed at the Holocaust Museum on the mall in DC).
A quick note about the UN. If you are wondering why the UN is so ineffective in policing the world, I would look to who controls the UN. It does not have the resources or power to intercede to stop major conflicts. The major players (USA, Russian, UK, China) are not interested in investing that body with that kind of influence. Thus it remains a deliberative body for the most part. Still, it offers the single real opportunity for nations to gather and work on issues of global importance (health, environment, human rights). I am sure someone better informed than I could create a list of the UN's accomplishments of the last 50 years.
Do Islamic fundamentalists have a goal of killing all non-Muslims who do not convert to Islam??
Does Bush's Christian Fundamentalism call for the death and/or abuse of all non-white Christians.
One of the basic claims of the modern Islamist movement is that Islam and the Muslim countries have been corrupted by western ideas and living such as capitalism, communism, secularism and consumerism.
From what I understand these "Western Ideas" also include Music, Films, Promiscuity and acceptance of non-heterosexual lifestyles. We're their version of Sodom & Gomorrah.
Depends on which Islamic groups you talk about. The Taliban for example wanted no music, women to be completely covered, etc. Others don't really give a shit about that stuff besides women wearing a veil and no homosexuality.
I think the big question that I have a hard time with is one I posed earlier that no one has tried to answer.
If a country or countries are experiencing genocide, mass killings, abuse and terrorism does anyone have the right or responsibility to try to end it??
My first inclination is that this is why we have the U.N. but based on what's gone on around the world I don't see them accomplishing much.
Even with the current Iraq invasion figures, the statistics that I find shows that the U.S. is responsible for less than 5% of all the religious/political "murders" that have taken place around the world in the last 20 years.
Is it our or anyone elses responsibility to stop these "murders" at any cost, or do we just accept that this is the way of the world and if you happened to be born in one of these places where violence rules the day you're just SOL?
I think if there's genocide, war, etc. It's up to regional powers and the international community to respond. The problem is many international and regional groups like the Organization of American States or the Arab League, or the U.N., etc. are pretty much divided and ineffective. As Dr. Wu pointed out, big powers get their way and usually don't care about these kinds of things unless their interests are directly involved. There are exceptions like Kosovo, but most of the time these things just play themselves out like what's happening in the Sudan right now, and various other countries in Africa.
I think the big question that I have a hard time with is one I posed earlier that no one has tried to answer.
If a country or countries are experiencing genocide, mass killings, abuse and terrorism does anyone have the right or responsibility to try to end it??
My first inclination is that this is why we have the U.N. but based on what's gone on around the world I don't see them accomplishing much.
Even with the current Iraq invasion figures, the statistics that I find shows that the U.S. is responsible for less than 5% of all the religious/political "murders" that have taken place around the world in the last 20 years.
Is it our or anyone elses responsibility to stop these "murders" at any cost, or do we just accept that this is the way of the world and if you happened to be born in one of these places where violence rules the day you're just SOL?
Rock,
I don't think there is an easy answer to your above question. In fact, the answer differs depending on your interests, resources and values. In recent years there have been successful interventions to stop genocidal conflicts (Kosovo) and more commonly glaring cases where genoicide was allowed to continue unabated (Rwanda, Darfur, East Timor). Of course, no one is in favor of genocide but the reasons for a nation state to stand against it are very complicated. Remember that America did not enter WW II because of the Holocaust. Jews had a very difficult time entering the US prior to our entry into the war. On many occassions Roosevelt refused requests to redirect bombing campaigns in Germany toward rail lines that would have stopped the exportation of Jews to death camps and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. He was aware of what was happening yet decided it was not a priority. (The memos detailing these requests are prominently displayed at the Holocaust Museum on the mall in DC).
A quick note about the UN. If you are wondering why the UN is so ineffective in policing the world, I would look to who controls the UN. It does not have the resources or power to intercede to stop major conflicts. The major players (USA, Russian, UK, China) are not interested in investing that body with that kind of influence. Thus it remains a deliberative body for the most part. Still, it offers the single real opportunity for nations to gather and work on issues of global importance (health, environment, human rights). I am sure someone better informed than I could create a list of the UN's accomplishments of the last 50 years.
Agreed....but I guess what I am looking for is an answer strictly based on morals and right vs. wrong. If you throw away all the politics, resources, complications...Is it America and/or any other country's moral responsibility to right all the wrongs in the world?? I think once you get past that black and white question you can start looking at the details of each individual situation.
I sincerely appreciate the serious and mature exchange of ideas....beats the shit out of people screaming "ban" or "go away".....thanks for not making me a "victim of SS".
In a broad moral sense, I think yes, countries need to stop genocide and wars. Can one country do it like the U.S.? No. As I said in my previous post, it's up to regional organizations and the international community because these situations affect groups, not single countries.
Look at the situation in Sudan. Chad is being brought into the fight, a bunch of refugees went to Egypt and met a bad fate. Countries need to recognize that these aren't just moral issues.
Will that ever happen. Nope.
Plus it depends on how you handle it.
I really think that Bush and Paul Wolfowitz felt a moral basis for invading Iraq. Of course I completely disagree with the idea that any country can give another people freedom and democracy at the barrel of a gun. It just seems to go against common sense and history, but that's what they thought and did.
Of course I completely disagree with the idea that any country can give another people freedom and democracy at the barrel of a gun. It just seems to go against common sense and history, but that's what they thought and did.
You don't think that freedom and democracy has EVER been the end result of War??
I think one reason why your politics tend to rub people the wrong way around here is that you tend to treat complex things like war, politics, values, morals with, in your own words, a "black and white" "right or wrong" simplicity that, to others around here (myself included) does not exist in the world.
Personally, in my experience, in my education, in my training, etc. I've never learned to reduce the world into simple binaries like that. To me, the idea that you can distill a conflict (of any variety) into an either/or issue is dangerous and naive because you end up erasing so many pertinent details which tend to be stuck in the stubborn middle.
The problem is that many politicians and media pundits - on all sides of the political spectrum - favor reducing things to just two sides. It makes it easier to sell to people because you're appealing to the lowest common denominator on either side of the aisle. And alas, I think in American political, cultural and intellectual life, too many of us have succumbed to the allure of treating everything in black and white rather than shades of grey.
That's why I retracted my comparison b/t you and Vitamin. Vitamin supports some unpopular political decision-making (given the general left-leaning politics of the board) but to me, he's always been able to support his arguments with concise, INFORMED rationales. Whereas, your arguments are predicated largely on gross overgeneralizations and stereotypes and talking points rhetoric. There are countless examples I could name, just in this thread alone.
Moreover, even when someone like Motown responds with ACTUAL RESEARCH AND INFORMATION, you tend to be dismissive and stubbornly cling to this question, "yeah, but is it right or wrong?" That to me, sounds like you're either not listening or, more accurately, refusing to listen.
I've said this before: I think arguing politics on Soul Strut is often pointless, insofar as the attitudes I've seen from most people has been to stick to rather intractable positions. And more to the point, as I've written in the past, I think it's a waste of energy to get people to change their mind or beliefs; it is much easier, however, to compel people to change their actions. We do think we don't like doing all the time because it's better to do it than not do it (pay taxes, wear a seatbelt - or condom for that matter, eat our veggies, etc.). Social change often happens not because there's a massive change of heart, but rather because enough pressure builds to force action.
But hey, politics are fun to argue about which is why, I suppose, all of us (self included) partake.
Odub, In my simplistic world...if everyone did "the right thing" all would be well....unrealistic, sure...but it would be a damn good start.
The world is in the shape it is, partially, because we spend too much time debating the "grey areas" and not making the "right" decision.
Any and every action will have it's critics. If my questions and attempt to fully understand the issue beyond the "politics" of it come off as dismissive to you, you're mistaken.
After reading the 9 page thread from about 6-7 months ago about Isreal I would define "Dismissive" as making statements like "Fuck You", You're An Asshole", "Why don't you just leave" and "Ban". BTW...most of these were made to the very well versed and articulate Mr. Vitamin.
It's my belief that in most instances, once you peel away the politics, personal feelings, propaganda and rhetoric, you can actually get to the crux of the matter and form a realistic opinion.
Another question I'm interested in finding an answer to is....Why here at SS the overwhelming majority of the vocal U.S. folks appear to be very Liberal which is disproportionate to the country as a whole?? Are Hip-Hop/Vinyl Geeks just smarter than the voting public??
"I think one reason why my politics tend to rub people the wrong way around here is that I'm not in lock step with what appears to be the "popular" opinion here"
I'm man enough to live with that.....and I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong and change an opinion if presented with logical evidence.
Of course I completely disagree with the idea that any country can give another people freedom and democracy at the barrel of a gun. It just seems to go against common sense and history, but that's what they thought and did.
You don't think that freedom and democracy has EVER been the end result of War??
Germany and Japan had a history of parliamentary democracy before the military and Hitler took over their countries. When WWII was over they simply returned to a former political system that they were comfortable with, had experience with, etc.
In Iraq it was different. We went in and told them how things were going to be run, tried to pick their leaders, and then fucked everything up over and over and over. Even the most simple things we couldn't and still can't provide like electricity. Hey we came to free you, but you won't be able to turn on your lights or air conditioners for most of the day. Please, hold back your applause and thanks. Now we're freaking out because the Iraqis actually want what they want and not what the U.S. wants like their own independent countries, a heavily Islamic influenced form of government, etc.
It's my belief that in most instances, once you peel away the politics, personal feelings, propaganda and rhetoric, you can actually get to the crux of the matter and form a realistic opinion.
It's still just your opinion though and someone will have a counter argument based upon their beliefs and facts as well. Vitamin and I will never agree on the causes of the war and we both have a wide variety of facts and information to back it up. Believe me, we've gone on and on and on about it.
There are also people who are ideologues, who believe in certain ideas regardless of the facts.
It's my belief that in most instances, once you peel away the politics, personal feelings, propaganda and rhetoric, you can actually get to the crux of the matter and form a realistic opinion.
It's still just your opinion though and someone will have a counter argument based upon their beliefs and facts as well. Vitamin and I will never agree on the causes of the war and we both have a wide variety of facts and information to back it up. Believe me, we've gone on and on and on about it.
There are also people who are ideologues, who believe in certain ideas regardless of the facts.
Odub, In my simplistic world...if everyone did "the right thing" all would be well....unrealistic, sure...but it would be a damn good start.
But Rockadelic...
We can't even agree as to what "the right thing" is? What does that phrase even mean?
See, this is what I'm saying: I feel like you're making presumptions as to what "the right thing" equals and it's not like everyone is going to agree on that.
And mind you, I'm not saying that we have to all sit around a campfire, singing Kumbaya, and create a group consensus. However, I do think we all need to acknowledge that part of the difficulty in governing a society and making decisions in the best interests of a society or its citizenship (let alone decisions for the world), is based in the fact that we don't all agree on what "the right thing is."
The world is in the shape it is, partially, because we spend too much time debating the "grey areas" and not making the "right" decision.
Again, I have no clue as to what you mean by this. It's glib but has no substance behind it. It's like if I said,
"America is fucked up because we've had people making all the wrong decisions."
I mean, I bet people would agree but what are they agreeing to?
Another question I'm interested in finding an answer to is....Why here at SS the overwhelming majority of the vocal U.S. folks appear to be very Liberal which is disproportionate to the country as a whole?? Are Hip-Hop/Vinyl Geeks just smarter than the voting public??
I don't know if they're smarter per se (though, based on the number of people who didn't vote for Bush, I'd say they were smarter than the half of America who did).
There's a variety of reasons that might explain the left-leaning politics of the board.
-Hip-hop and soul geeks who are influenced by the political traditions of those genres.
-The left, as a whole, has a greater investment in art that operates from the margin than the right does. If this board was all about, say, classical music, you might find a different political temperment.
-People invested in technology and uses of technology (such as internet message boards) also tend to be more left-leaning, at least on certain issues.
Odub, In my simplistic world...if everyone did "the right thing" all would be well....unrealistic, sure...but it would be a damn good start.
But Rockadelic...
We can't even agree as to what "the right thing" is? What does that phrase even mean?
See, this is what I'm saying: I feel like you're making presumptions as to what "the right thing" equals and it's not like everyone is going to agree on that.
And mind you, I'm not saying that we have to all sit around a campfire, singing Kumbaya, and create a group consensus. However, I do think we all need to acknowledge that part of the difficulty in governing a society and making decisions in the best interests of a society or its citizenship (let alone decisions for the world), is based in the fact that we don't all agree on what "the right thing is."
The world is in the shape it is, partially, because we spend too much time debating the "grey areas" and not making the "right" decision.
Again, I have no clue as to what you mean by this. It's glib but has no substance behind it. It's like if I said,
"America is fucked up because we've had people making all the wrong decisions."
I mean, I bet people would agree but what are they agreeing to?
Another question I'm interested in finding an answer to is....Why here at SS the overwhelming majority of the vocal U.S. folks appear to be very Liberal which is disproportionate to the country as a whole?? Are Hip-Hop/Vinyl Geeks just smarter than the voting public??
I don't know if they're smarter per se (though, based on the number of people who didn't vote for Bush, I'd say they were smarter than the half of America who did).
There's a variety of reasons that might explain the left-leaning politics of the board.
-Hip-hop and soul geeks who are influenced by the political traditions of those genres.
-The left, as a whole, has a greater investment in art that operates from the margin than the right does. If this board was all about, say, classical music, you might find a different political temperment.
-People invested in technology and uses of technology (such as internet message boards) also tend to be more left-leaning, at least on certain issues.
At least we can agree that those 50% who didn't vote for Bush are smarter than the 50% that did, right?? This is exactly why I can't take anyone who aligns themselves with the left or right very seriously....they both think they are "smarter" than the other instead of just having differing opinions.
I recently read an article where the author stated that automobile Air Bags should be outlawed because they have casued the death of a number of children and that they are just a ploy for the auto makers to make more $$. The other side of the argument claims that these air bags have saved infinitely more lives than they have taken and that the anti-Air Bag groups just want to sue the auto companies and line their pockets on behalf of the dead children. The politics of this issue are deeper than I ever imagined but I was able to form an opinion by cutting away all the BS.....here's my simple minded conclusion.
If they kill more children than they save human life they should be outlawed.
If they save more humans than they kill children they should be mandatory and the auto makers should be protected from air bag related lawsuits.
You can argue ANYTHING without accomplishing a damn thing, but be assured there is a black and white bottom line answer to every issue, whether you or I agree with it or not. Not an answer based on politics, religion, big business or other "special interests" an answer based solely on what's best for humankind as a whole.
Comments
Here are the articles that I used for the write-up on the elections and their effects:
S.F. Chronicle/L.A. Times ??? ???Kurds allow Norway firm to begin drilling for oil??? ??? 12/1/05
NPR ??? ???Election Goal No. 1: Holding Iraq Together??? ??? 12/14/05
Washington Post ??? ???For Kurds, A Surge Of Violence In Campaign??? ??? 12/14/05
S.F. Chronicle ??? ???Deadly election-eve violence??? ??? 12/14/05
Reuters ??? ???Analysis ??? After Iraq vote success, now for the hard part??? ??? 12/15/05
New York Times ??? ???New Mission for U.S. Division: To Put Iraqi Forces to the Test??? ??? 12/18/05
Guardian U.K. ??? ???Rise in poll complaints troubles Iraq vote monitors??? ??? 12/19/05
Christian Science Monitor ??? ???Next in Iraq: coalition-building??? - 12/19/05
Christian Science Monitor ??? ???Iraqi vote points to Islamist path??? ??? 12/21/05
Washington Times ??? ???Washington seeks partial truce with Iraqi insurgents??? ??? 12/21/05
S.F. Chronicle/Washington Post ??? ???Parties demand new elections??? ??? 12/23/05
Inter Press Service News Agency ??? ???Politics-Iraq: US-Shiite Struggle Could Spin out of Control??? ??? 12/26/05
Knight Ridder ??? ???Kurds in Iraqi army proclaim loyalty to militia??? ??? 12/27/05
Knight Ridder ??? ???Many Iraqi soldiers see a civil war on the horizon??? ??? 12/27/05
MSNBC.Com ??? ???Are Iraqi police engaging in torture tactics???? ??? 12/29/05
New York Times ??? ???Kurds Are Flocking to Kirkuk, Laying Claim to Land and Oil??? ??? 12/29/05
Christian Science Monitor ??? ???Shiites, Kurds forge ahead??? ??? 12/30/05
You know, I don't keep links to anything these days. I just print stuff out or cut it out. I've got a whole cabinet full of clippings and articles.
That being said, this is where I got the report from and can give you a few more details.
The article was from Tomdispatch.com which is done by Tom Engelhardt of the Nation Institute. The article was "Tomgram: Dahr Jamail on the Missing Air War in Iraq" from 12/13/05.
The study was done by a British medical journal called Lancet and released in October 2004. It actually estimated that 85%, not the 87% I quoted, of all violent deaths in Iraq were by coalition forces, mostly U.S. air strikes.
Hope that helps.
Rockadelic, refusing to face facts does not automatically make them false. You're claiming ignorance and arguing against those who've educated themselves in the same breath. You can't have your cake and eat it too. (While on the topic of cliches, please refrain from typing "begs the question" in reference to a question you wish to ask. That's not what the phrase means. Thanks. -Soulstrut Grammar Police)
99 sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. Like I just said in the previous post, I don't keep links but I can cite some recent news articles that I have about the Kurds, mostly dealing with Kirkuk.
New York Times - "Kurds Are Flocking to Kirkuk, Laying Claim to Land and Oil" 12/29/05
Knight Ridder - "Kurds in Iraqi army proclaim loyalty to milita" 12/27/05
Knight Ridder - "Many Iraqi soldiers see a civil war on the horizon" 12/27/05
Washington Post - "For Kurds, A Surge Of Violence In Campaign" 12/14/05
LA Times - "Kurds allow Norway firm to begin drilling for oil" 12/1/05
Washington Post - "Kurds Reclaining Prized Territory In Northern Iraq" 10/30/05
Washington Post - "Militias Wresting Control Across Iraq's North and South" 8/20/05
Der Spiegel - "Is the Country Heading for Civil War?" 7/25/05
SF Chronicle/Washington Post - "U.S. memo tells of abductions of Kirkuk minorities" 6/15/05
SF Chronicle/New York Times - "Iraq's top leaders voice approval of Kurdish, Shiite militias" 6/9/05
SF Chronicle - "Kurds, Shiites agree to resolve fate of Kirkuk" 3/11/05
Time Magazine - "Revenge of the Kurds" 3/7/05
SF Chronicle - "Divided Kirkuk a rich political prize" 1/27/05
Well that one's pretty easy to answer actually.
1) The Bush administration lied and exaggerated the threat that Iraq posed and said that it was connected to Al Qaeda and terrorism when it wasn't. You can read about what they lied about here in a piece I wrote up:
http://soulstrut.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=crates&Number=513396&fpart=&PHPSESSID=
2) Despite the Bush administration's claims that Congress had the same intelligence that the Bush administration had, that's simply not true. The Congress got 2 documents right before the vote for war to basically go on. One was the secret National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which had to be read in a secret room. Most members of Congress never read it. The second was the White Paper on Iraq released a few days later. Other than that, if a congressperson wasn't on an intelligence or armed forces committee they had those two documents, the newspaper and the Bush administraiton to base their decision to go to war on.
3) The Bush administration made a great public relations campaign to win the public over to their side and beat down any politician as being soft on terrorism if they didn't support the war. Remember, this was when the Bush administration had convinced the majority of the public that Iraq was connected to 9/11, which it wasn't. There were a few Democrats like J. Biden and J. Lieberman who supported the war from the beginning but disagreed with the tactics that the Bush administration was using like not forming a real coalition against Iraq, but the rest of the Democrats basically got brow beat into supporting the war so they woulnd't look like they were against fighting terrorism. That's on them, and they continue to pay for it in half assed public statements about how they supported the war but now don't because they didn't know enough, or whatever kind of excuse they can come up with.
I don't know where you get the idea that the U.S. or Congress could've pulled out U.S. troops from Iraq however. That only just became a major topic of debate because one Congressman who is a war vet and very close to the military came out and challenged the Bush administraiton about when the U.S. is going to leave. Otherwise there has been no serious plan or vote on pulling out U.S. troops in Congress.
No. There are some violent Islamist groups, and some non-violent ones. Some of Bin Laden's top aides are against Sunnis killing Shiite Muslims. Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, wants to create a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites and calls Shiites apostates, not true believers.
I think you need to spend some time reading about Islam and Islamic fundamentalism before you start making these kinds of statements even if they're to create a dichotomy to make a larger point because they are way off base like your earlier comment that Muslim societies are somehow fundamentally violent and disfunctional.
I don't support Islamic fundamentalism either, but the vast majority of people we're fighting in Iraq are NOT Islamists. Studies vary, but basically only 3-10% of the insurgents in Iraq are foreign fighters and Islamic terrorists. Most of the insurgents are former Baathists who want to return to power, Sunni tribal groups, criminals, poor people out of work who get paid for every attack they make, and a small, but growing number of Sunnis who are nationalists.
It's part of the Bush administration's public relations campaign to justify the war by talking about Iraq being the frontline in the war on terrorism and always talking about Zarqawi and Al Qaeda in Iraq every time there are attacks in Iraq. It makes it look like everyone we're fighting is a foreign fighter and we're actually doing something against Al Qaeda there, when in fact, we're not doing much. Invading Iraq has actually been a boon for Al Qaeda and Islamists rather than a set-back.
One of the only things that the Bush administration has been able to do right on Iraq until the middle of 2005 was to win the hearts and minds of the American public on the necessity of the war. This strategy was based upon just a few basic assumptions that were repeated again and again by Bush and others in speech after speech. It wasn???t until recently that any of these assumptions were challenged, and many still aren???t today. Here???s a basic run down of the Bush argument for fighting in Iraq.
Point 1: American must fight terrorism in Iraq so we don???t have to fight terrorism at home.[/b]
While it???s true that the U.S. needs to fight terrorism abroad to stop another 9/11 in the U.S. that doesn???t mean that we???re not being attacked. Many people think that just because there hasn???t been another attack within the U.S. since 9/11 that we???re winning the war on terror somehow. However the bombings in England, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia and most recently Jordan show that our friends are being attacked at home all the time. No Americans were being killed in Iraq or by Iraqis until we invaded the country. Now on average, one American is being killed a day. If this statement means that Americans need only worry about an attack on the U.S. then they are being misled about the war on terrorism. Dick Cheney said in September 2003, ???Our military is confronting the terrorists, along with our allies, in Iraq and Afghanistan so that innocent civilians will not have to confront terrorist violence in Washington or London or anywhere else in the world.??? Well guess what Dick, civilians in London and other countries have had terrorist attacks since Iraq. It???s not an either or situation.
Point 2: The U.S. most focus upon Iraq because it???s the central front in the war on terror.[/b]
Iraq wasn???t a base or a supporter of terrorism against the U.S. before the Iraq war. Now, it is. There are terrorist camps in western Iraq, there are 700 attacks a day against U.S., allied and Iraqi forces. Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, partially thanks to his large and dramatic bombings, and partly because the U.S. plays him up so much, has become one of the most famous Islamic terrorists in the world since the invasion. Before the war, he was basically an unknown to many. The attack on Iraq also supports Bin Laden???s claims that the U.S. is out to destroy Muslim societies and occupy their countries, drawing more supporters to his cause. A whole new generation of Muslims has also been radicalized by the U.S. invasion. One example is the Madrid bombers who were not members of Al Qaeda nor radical and violent Islamists before the invasion. The attack on Iraq radicalized them and they drew inspiration from videos and public statements made by Bin Laden on the topic. That led them to come up with a terrorist plan that killed hundreds of civilians, toppled the Spanish government, and led to the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. Not only that, but only 3-10% of the insurgents in Iraq are actually foreign terrorists. The vast majority of insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis who are not Islamists.
Point 3: The U.S. military is making Iraq safer.[/b]
The insurgency has grown in strength every year. The number of attacks against U.S. forces has gone up every year. The number of civilians killed by both the insurgents and the U.S. military has increased each year. For the entire first year of the occupation, the Pentagon tried to ignore the insurgency. For the second year of the occupation they finally admitted that there was an insurgency but had no coordinated plan to fight it. Only at the end of 2005 has the U.S. come up with a real counterinsurgency plan, which is hinged on very questionable Iraqi security forces taking over when the real fighting is finished by U.S. soldiers. The levels of lawlessness and general crime is also worse now then under Saddam. According to polls conducted by the U.S. government in early 2005, the Iraqi people do not feel safer under U.S. occupation. In fact, the majority say they feel unsafe when U.S. forces patrol their neighborhoods because it will probably lead to attacks by insurgents. It???s hard to see how things are better now then before if you live in Iraq. Basically the Iraqis went from one bad situation, living under Saddam???s dictatorship, to another, living under an incompetent U.S. occupation.
Point 4: The U.S. is helping with Iraqis political transition from dictatorship to democracy.[/b]
Yes, the U.S. overthrew a horrible dictatorship under Saddam Hussein. Yes, there have been elections in Iraq. However the simple process of voting has not led to a civil society that values Iraq as a unified country. Rather the votes have increased the religious and ethnic divisions within the country. The Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South, because they came in 1st and 2nd in elections feel they have the political backing to create their own autonomous spheres of influence. Many want their own separate countries, or a Shiite led government that will dominate their former oppressors the Sunnis. The Sunnis on the other hand boycotted one election and participated in the last one in large numbers, but are still being shut out of the political process, thus fueling the insurgency.
Point 5: U.S. forces must remain in Iraq to train Iraqi security forces.[/b]
All this talk about training Iraqi security forces was basically all bullshit until very recently. It wasn???t until late 2004 that the U.S. finally gave training the Iraqi security forces the money that it needed. There are still not enough trainers nor people that speak Arabic to effectively train the Iraqi army. Not only that but the incorporation of various Shiite and Kurdish militias into the security forces causes all kinds of religious and ethnic tensions, plus basic command and control problems in the country rather than solving them. The police forces are even worse than the army. In December of 2005 the U.S. announced a plan to incorporate thousands of U.S. soldiers within each Iraqi police unit to stop their torture, abuses and death squad activities, but how this will work has not been laid out. Regular U.S. troops can tell an Iraqi not to beat someone or put a bullet in their head, but how are they to teach Iraqis police work or instill in them a sense of national and civic pride rather than loyalty to their militias? No one knows.
Rock,
It is important to remember that politicians are in the perception business. Democrats are often perceived as being weak on Defense issues (even though we dropped the atomic bomb, started the cold war, Korea and Vietnam). Most Dems figured that it was not worth the perceived risk to vote against the war in Iraq(which was generally popular amongst the American public at the time). This explains for example why John Kerry, in the heat of a primary battle, would vote against the infamous 80 billion dollar military apropriations bill even though it would hurt his chances of winning the presidency. The fact is that at the time Howard Dean was steamrolling the field with a hard anti-war campaign. Kerry felt he had to vote against the apropriations bill to win the nomination. Politics is tricky. Add bad work by the CIA/NSA (really an abandonment of its core responsibilities) and the White Houses' very cunning manipulation/lying on certain issues, all of which made voting for the resolution a no brainer for any Dem not in a lock seat.
If you think this seems cynical I would invite you to examine the records of the two most likely nominees for both parties in the upcoming 2008 election. Hilary Clinton since being elected to the Senate has taken an extremely hawkish position on the War on Terror. Her positions fly in opposition to everything we know about her politics before gaining a Senate seat, which for the 30 years were staunchly traditionally liberal. How is this possible? Well, Hilary would like to President and understands well that she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of gaining the nomination much less the big prize without an extreme policy makeover. So she is moving rightward. BTW Hilary voted for both the War resolution and the 80 billion. She even warned Kerry that voting against the bill would come back to haunt him.
Sen. McCain is also an interesting character. He ran for the presidency in 2000, narrowly losing to Bush after a vicious smear campaign in South Carolina derailed his candidacy. So how does one make sense of the fact that McCain very actively campaigned for Bush (who he truly despises) in 2004? The simple answer is he is going to run in 2008. He needs the party leadership's support to have a chance at winning and he knew he would curry favor by helping Bush. I encourage you to look closely at his voting record and foreign policy positions as the 2008 campaign approaches. Even though he is right of right on most issues (abortion, taxes and the war on Terror), he will campaign as a tough but caring moderate (read "campassionate conservative"). Sound familiar? Well, get ready. Do not be fooled but what he says (or how the media portrays him), look deeply at what he does. If people are interested I can do a more detailed write up on his voting record.
Lastly Rock I gather from your posts that you are somewhat torn about the war on terror. You see suicide bombings and the insurgency in Iraq and wonder what he hell is up with the fundamentalist Muslims. But as an isolationist you don't like getting involved. I think we made a fundamental mistake in how we viewed the growing Islamic terrorist threat. By overreacting we have spread the seed of disenchantment, widening the scope of the jihad and linking groups that did not have a single focus before. I think eventually this problem will slowly subside as the economics of the region changes, forcing people to work more closely to together. This is ultimately what made it possible for Jordan to make peace with Israel. In the end their is just no money in a war between the west and the middle east.
In some ways you have answered your own question. You say you are "not a globalist" (or rather more accurately you are an isolationist in the classic sense). This is a devilish position for any nation much less a superpower to take. Without effective relationships with other nations or the willingness to pursue national interests (economic, political and the like), it is likely that we will find ourselves in a chaotic and very unfriendly world. Some nation will exert itself on these fronts. So for example, in the case of Iran and North Korea, it is not a question of whether we will get involved to deal with their nuclear aspirations but how. Leaving these two nations free to do whatever they please is simply irresponsible and dangerous.
To my mind, involvement on global politics is a given, it is only the manner and focus that must be chosen. As Motown has so effectively pointed out, Iraq is a blunder of epic proportions. One that truly may haunt us for a generation. The amount of money, lives and rippling geo-politcal problems we face because of it are breathtaking. Just a quick example, Iran is currently pursuing an aggressive program to build a nuclear weapon. Why? Because we have troops on its border and it cannot stop us from overrunning them conventionally. Our President has identified them as an axis of evil. In their leaderships' judgment an atomic deterent is the only viable option for stopping an invasion if we decided to go that direction. So one outcome of the war on terror (specifically the invasion of Iraq) has been to escalate the development of nuclear weapons in the region.
Lastly, I have no idea how we should proceed in Iraq. I think that it is likely that Iraq will break into pieces particularly around the Kurdish issue. If that happens, who knows what the outcome will be. This was the BUSH SR argument against unseating Saddam after the first Gulf War. Sadly, his son chose not to heed his father's sage example. I hope I have not come off as condescending in all of this. If I have offended in anyway please let me know. I agree with you that we need to listen to one another with respect and open minds.
By the way, that's not even the message of Bin Laden nor of any Islamic groups that I've studied closely (those being Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, and Algeria).
One of the basic claims of the modern Islamist movement is that Islam and the Muslim countries have been corrupted by western ideas and living such as capitalism, communism, secularism and consumerism. Plus most Muslim countries are ruled by dictatorships and have proven weak against Israel. They want to end this corruption by returning to a mythical Islamic form of government, which they claimed existed in the past. They don't care about converting people. It's about fixing what's wrong with people who are already Muslims, by getting rid of their governments.
Bin Laden's specific message is that the U.S. is the reason why these corrupt governments exist and therefore Islamists need to attack the U.S. Since most of these governments from Morocco to Egypt in North Africa, to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in West Asia to Indonesia in East Asia are all U.S. allies, it wasn't that hard of an argument to make and prove to people.
The 9/11 attacks were suppose to propel Bin Laden into the leadership of the world Islamist movement and make others join him, which is basically what happened.
The guy that needs to answer those questions is currently stinking up this joint...
In some ways you have answered your own question. You say you are "not a globalist" (or rather more accurately you are an isolationist in the classic sense). This is a devilish position for any nation much less a superpower to take. Without effective relationships with other nations or the willingness to pursue national interests (economic, political and the like), it is likely that we will find ourselves in a chaotic and very unfriendly world. Some nation will exert itself on these fronts. So for example, in the case of Iran and North Korea, it is not a question of whether we will get involved to deal with their nuclear aspirations but how. Leaving these two nations free to do whatever they please is simply irresponsible and dangerous.
To my mind, involvement on global politics is a given, it is only the manner and focus that must be chosen. As Motown has so effectively pointed out, Iraq is a blunder of epic proportions. One that truly may haunt us for a generation. The amount of money, lives and rippling geo-politcal problems we face because of it are breathtaking. Just a quick example, Iran is currently pursuing an aggressive program to build a nuclear weapon. Why? Because we have troops on its border and it cannot stop us from overrunning them conventionally. Our President has identified them as an axis of evil. In their leaderships' judgment an atomic deterent is the only viable option for stopping an invasion if we decided to go that direction. So one outcome of the war on terror (specifically the invasion of Iraq) has been to escalate the development of nuclear weapons in the region.
Lastly, I have no idea how we should proceed in Iraq. I think that it is likely that Iraq will break into pieces particularly around the Kurdish issue. If that happens, who knows what the outcome will be. This was the BUSH SR argument against unseating Saddam after the first Gulf War. Sadly, his son chose not to heed his father's sage example. I hope I have not come off as condescending in all of this. If I have offended in anyway please let me know. I agree with you that we need to listen to one another with respect and open minds.
Great stuff....and unfortunately confirms my feelings that ALL politicians suck.
Thanks.
If a country or countries are experiencing genocide, mass killings, abuse and terrorism does anyone have the right or responsibility to try to end it??
My first inclination is that this is why we have the U.N. but based on what's gone on around the world I don't see them accomplishing much.
Even with the current Iraq invasion figures, the statistics that I find shows that the U.S. is responsible for less than 5% of all the religious/political "murders" that have taken place around the world in the last 20 years.
Is it our or anyone elses responsibility to stop these "murders" at any cost, or do we just accept that this is the way of the world and if you happened to be born in one of these places where violence rules the day you're just SOL?
Rock,
I don't think there is an easy answer to your above question. In fact, the answer differs depending on your interests, resources and values. In recent years there have been successful interventions to stop genocidal conflicts (Kosovo) and more commonly glaring cases where genoicide was allowed to continue unabated (Rwanda, Darfur, East Timor). Of course, no one is in favor of genocide but the reasons for a nation state to stand against it are very complicated. Remember that America did not enter WW II because of the Holocaust. Jews had a very difficult time entering the US prior to our entry into the war. On many occassions Roosevelt refused requests to redirect bombing campaigns in Germany toward rail lines that would have stopped the exportation of Jews to death camps and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. He was aware of what was happening yet decided it was not a priority. (The memos detailing these requests are prominently displayed at the Holocaust Museum on the mall in DC).
A quick note about the UN. If you are wondering why the UN is so ineffective in policing the world, I would look to who controls the UN. It does not have the resources or power to intercede to stop major conflicts. The major players (USA, Russian, UK, China) are not interested in investing that body with that kind of influence. Thus it remains a deliberative body for the most part. Still, it offers the single real opportunity for nations to gather and work on issues of global importance (health, environment, human rights). I am sure someone better informed than I could create a list of the UN's accomplishments of the last 50 years.
I think if there's genocide, war, etc. It's up to regional powers and the international community to respond. The problem is many international and regional groups like the Organization of American States or the Arab League, or the U.N., etc. are pretty much divided and ineffective. As Dr. Wu pointed out, big powers get their way and usually don't care about these kinds of things unless their interests are directly involved. There are exceptions like Kosovo, but most of the time these things just play themselves out like what's happening in the Sudan right now, and various other countries in Africa.
Agreed....but I guess what I am looking for is an answer strictly based on morals and right vs. wrong. If you throw away all the politics, resources, complications...Is it America and/or any other country's moral responsibility to right all the wrongs in the world?? I think once you get past that black and white question you can start looking at the details of each individual situation.
I sincerely appreciate the serious and mature exchange of ideas....beats the shit out of people screaming "ban" or "go away".....thanks for not making me a "victim of SS".
Look at the situation in Sudan. Chad is being brought into the fight, a bunch of refugees went to Egypt and met a bad fate. Countries need to recognize that these aren't just moral issues.
Will that ever happen. Nope.
Plus it depends on how you handle it.
I really think that Bush and Paul Wolfowitz felt a moral basis for invading Iraq. Of course I completely disagree with the idea that any country can give another people freedom and democracy at the barrel of a gun. It just seems to go against common sense and history, but that's what they thought and did.
You don't think that freedom and democracy has EVER been the end result of War??
I think one reason why your politics tend to rub people the wrong way around here is that you tend to treat complex things like war, politics, values, morals with, in your own words, a "black and white" "right or wrong" simplicity that, to others around here (myself included) does not exist in the world.
Personally, in my experience, in my education, in my training, etc. I've never learned to reduce the world into simple binaries like that. To me, the idea that you can distill a conflict (of any variety) into an either/or issue is dangerous and naive because you end up erasing so many pertinent details which tend to be stuck in the stubborn middle.
The problem is that many politicians and media pundits - on all sides of the political spectrum - favor reducing things to just two sides. It makes it easier to sell to people because you're appealing to the lowest common denominator on either side of the aisle. And alas, I think in American political, cultural and intellectual life, too many of us have succumbed to the allure of treating everything in black and white rather than shades of grey.
That's why I retracted my comparison b/t you and Vitamin. Vitamin supports some unpopular political decision-making (given the general left-leaning politics of the board) but to me, he's always been able to support his arguments with concise, INFORMED rationales. Whereas, your arguments are predicated largely on gross overgeneralizations and stereotypes and talking points rhetoric. There are countless examples I could name, just in this thread alone.
Moreover, even when someone like Motown responds with ACTUAL RESEARCH AND INFORMATION, you tend to be dismissive and stubbornly cling to this question, "yeah, but is it right or wrong?" That to me, sounds like you're either not listening or, more accurately, refusing to listen.
I've said this before: I think arguing politics on Soul Strut is often pointless, insofar as the attitudes I've seen from most people has been to stick to rather intractable positions. And more to the point, as I've written in the past, I think it's a waste of energy to get people to change their mind or beliefs; it is much easier, however, to compel people to change their actions. We do think we don't like doing all the time because it's better to do it than not do it (pay taxes, wear a seatbelt - or condom for that matter, eat our veggies, etc.). Social change often happens not because there's a massive change of heart, but rather because enough pressure builds to force action.
But hey, politics are fun to argue about which is why, I suppose, all of us (self included) partake.
Odub,
In my simplistic world...if everyone did "the right thing" all would be well....unrealistic, sure...but it would be a damn good start.
The world is in the shape it is, partially, because we spend too much time debating the "grey areas" and not making the "right" decision.
Any and every action will have it's critics. If my questions and attempt to fully understand the issue beyond the "politics" of it come off as dismissive to you, you're mistaken.
After reading the 9 page thread from about 6-7 months ago about Isreal I would define "Dismissive" as making statements like "Fuck You", You're An Asshole", "Why don't you just leave" and "Ban". BTW...most of these were made to the very well versed and articulate Mr. Vitamin.
It's my belief that in most instances, once you peel away the politics, personal feelings, propaganda and rhetoric, you can actually get to the crux of the matter and form a realistic opinion.
Another question I'm interested in finding an answer to is....Why here at SS the overwhelming majority of the vocal U.S. folks appear to be very Liberal which is disproportionate to the country as a whole?? Are Hip-Hop/Vinyl Geeks just smarter than the voting public??
"I think one reason why my politics tend to rub people the wrong way around here is that I'm not in lock step with what appears to be the "popular" opinion here"
I'm man enough to live with that.....and I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong and change an opinion if presented with logical evidence.
Live with it.
Germany and Japan had a history of parliamentary democracy before the military and Hitler took over their countries. When WWII was over they simply returned to a former political system that they were comfortable with, had experience with, etc.
In Iraq it was different. We went in and told them how things were going to be run, tried to pick their leaders, and then fucked everything up over and over and over. Even the most simple things we couldn't and still can't provide like electricity. Hey we came to free you, but you won't be able to turn on your lights or air conditioners for most of the day. Please, hold back your applause and thanks. Now we're freaking out because the Iraqis actually want what they want and not what the U.S. wants like their own independent countries, a heavily Islamic influenced form of government, etc.
It's still just your opinion though and someone will have a counter argument based upon their beliefs and facts as well. Vitamin and I will never agree on the causes of the war and we both have a wide variety of facts and information to back it up. Believe me, we've gone on and on and on about it.
There are also people who are ideologues, who believe in certain ideas regardless of the facts.
Agreed and Amen
But Rockadelic...
We can't even agree as to what "the right thing" is? What does that phrase even mean?
See, this is what I'm saying: I feel like you're making presumptions as to what "the right thing" equals and it's not like everyone is going to agree on that.
And mind you, I'm not saying that we have to all sit around a campfire, singing Kumbaya, and create a group consensus. However, I do think we all need to acknowledge that part of the difficulty in governing a society and making decisions in the best interests of a society or its citizenship (let alone decisions for the world), is based in the fact that we don't all agree on what "the right thing is."
Again, I have no clue as to what you mean by this. It's glib but has no substance behind it. It's like if I said,
"America is fucked up because we've had people making all the wrong decisions."
I mean, I bet people would agree but what are they agreeing to?
I don't know if they're smarter per se (though, based on the number of people who didn't vote for Bush, I'd say they were smarter than the half of America who did).
There's a variety of reasons that might explain the left-leaning politics of the board.
-Hip-hop and soul geeks who are influenced by the political traditions of those genres.
-The left, as a whole, has a greater investment in art that operates from the margin than the right does. If this board was all about, say, classical music, you might find a different political temperment.
-People invested in technology and uses of technology (such as internet message boards) also tend to be more left-leaning, at least on certain issues.
At least we can agree that those 50% who didn't vote for Bush are smarter than the 50% that did, right?? This is exactly why I can't take anyone who aligns themselves with the left or right very seriously....they both think they are "smarter" than the other instead of just having differing opinions.
I recently read an article where the author stated that automobile Air Bags should be outlawed because they have casued the death of a number of children and that they are just a ploy for the auto makers to make more $$. The other side of the argument claims that these air bags have saved infinitely more lives than they have taken and that the anti-Air Bag groups just want to sue the auto companies and line their pockets on behalf of the dead children. The politics of this issue are deeper than I ever imagined but I was able to form an opinion by cutting away all the BS.....here's my simple minded conclusion.
If they kill more children than they save human life they should be outlawed.
If they save more humans than they kill children they should be mandatory and the auto makers should be protected from air bag related lawsuits.
You can argue ANYTHING without accomplishing a damn thing, but be assured there is a black and white bottom line answer to every issue, whether you or I agree with it or not. Not an answer based on politics, religion, big business or other "special interests" an answer based solely on what's best for humankind as a whole.