|
Post by What Hat on Jan 28, 2015 19:32:04 GMT -5
I just came across this clip in researching Bill Maher after his comment about Chris Kyle (American Sniper) being a “psychopathic patriot”. Interesting discussion, with lots of (for the time being) unanswerable questions. But, I agree. This is a Muslim problem – how are they going to step up to the plate? (I had previously posted links to the Ismailis on this board, that was summarily dismissed as “Not Real Muslims”. I disagree. This is a group of people who are more evolved any Christian (or any other persuasion) group that I know. I know individuals who are more evolved, but no groups. I had peripherally been aware of Bill Mayer before, but never paid much attention to him. After his Chris Kyle comment, I was shocked to find the number of issues that I probably agree with him on. I still think he is out to lunch on “American Sniper”. As other critics have expressed it is “Not a black and white film; it is an honest film.” I also became acquainted with the term " apatheist", which I had never come across before. That was an interesting dialogue. Salman Rushdie made the most sense, e.g. this is a conflict within Islam not so much, here I am supposing, against Islam. Carly Fiorina I remember as an unsuccessful computer CEO for Compaq Computer. She just did not get Maher's point that religious ideology generally speaking leads to the kind of bad effects we see in Islam, even though Christianity got past the worst effects, for the most part. I didn't hear anything about 'American Sniper' in this clip. Just another American Rambo, some of my American friends have said. Apparently Kyle wrote in his memoir “I hate the damn savages,” “I couldn’t give a flying f*** about the Iraqis.”" I wonder if that made the movie or if they sanitized the character. I just saw 'Theory of Everything' and it was great. Both 'Wild' and 'Imitation Game' are on my list. I'll take a pass on 'American Sniper', I think. Aren't the top snipers all Canadian, in any case?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 28, 2015 19:47:28 GMT -5
I think we both share a hatred of oppression and an empathy for the underdog, but our views on the cause and the solution vary widely. Do you personally boycott all of the petrol companie I'm concerned about carbon dioxide emissions in general. However, the issue of buying products is a double-edged sword. If I boycotted a company that exploited garment workers in Bangla-Desh, say, I'd also be putting those workers out of work and they would starve. I don't shop at Wal-Mart except on very rare occasion because I dislike the entire supply-chain system they use. The reasons are slightly different in Wal-Mart's case. I don't like the idea of super cargo ships strung across the Pacific Ocean carrying mountains full of future landfill material manufactured under conditions which abuse labour and the environment while we put ourselves out of work and lose our ability to do much beside watch TV commercials and drive to Wal-Mart to buy more junk. So I don't shop there. But I don't really feel like I should boycott an oil company because of what Shell does in Nigeria, say. It's complex. First, I don't blame capitalism as a system anymore than I would blame democracy because Hitler was voted into power. When I blame "Western capitalism" I mean "capitalism and its Western practitioners" not a free market economy, trade or the mechanism of capital investment. They are just mechanisms. I also don't see "Western capitalism" or its purveyors as wholly good or wholly bad. I'm not looking for a sea change in the system. I see the actors within Western capitalism as doing some good things and some bad things. It's important to identify the bad things and try to correct them. As an example, we know monopolies are bad and we have anti-trust laws preventing them from forming. I don't believe that markets self-correct and purge bad actors. They might if markets were truly free but they are never free. But I also am not fond of over-regulation. Government bureaucracies tend to be lazy and reactive and the number one problem is enforcement; the rules are often already there. I think there are answers though, but I don't think there are any magic bullets that will solve all the problems. I am rather outraged at the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, the widespread poverty and hunger in the world, the amount of military intervention that is unwarranted, and on and on. I don't blame anyone in particular for the situation of the world. There is no easy solution. Given that, I do bridle at views that take either one of the following form: 1) The people of a particular race | country | religion | neighbourhood are to blame for the hunger | poverty | destitution | homelessness that they face. 2) Our capitalist | democratic | American | European system or way of life is responsible for our success. If everyone acted in as virtuous | hard working | intelligent fashion as we did, they would have our high standard of living as well. Generally I believe views or notions of that form exist mainly to dismiss the plight of others in some respect and deflect us from looking at ourselves and our own systems. It's not that I think a particular country shouldn't take responsibility for what happens there. If Nigeria is ruled by a despot, why don't the people kick him out? But we often have a responsibility too. These rulers use brutal repression to stay in power, and who provides them with the arms? Why does Shell pay large sums to a few despots which they then use to keep themselves in power and brutalize their public? Why is there abject poverty in Nigeria and a small super-wealthy class as well? Don't get me wrong. We don't always do the wrong thing with countries like Nigeria. It looks like Obama and Kerry are trying to do the right thing as far as making sure the election takes place. But it's never hard to identify when the "right thing" is done. It's much harder to identify and convince people when wrong things are done. Right things are done in the light, and wrong things are done in the dark. This is why the Iraqi invasion of 2003 was such a low point in Western foreign relations. We all were lied to about the reason for going in. By "we" I mean me, my friends and neighbours and the heads of state of 40 foreign countries. Thank you, Jean Chretien for not believing the lies. And then we were BS'd and lied to right along during the whole operation. Now we have ISIS as a direct consequence of the mistakes that were made. And now, 11 or 12 years later the deeds that were done in darkness are coming to light. My view on the mistakes is that mistakes do happen and it was almost inevitable that what happened would happen. The warnings and analysis of what could happen were all there at the outset, but brushed aside, ignored, and replaced with false hopes and promises based on a false ideology that the Western system transplanted to Iraq would be a magic fix. What we actually have now is not capitalism as it was designed to function. Instead, we have predatory capitalism, nurtured by the insane notion that people exist for the health of corporations, which have succeeded in manipulating laws so that they are the de facto government, rather than the agents of the people. In the US they have actually now achieved "person" status -- extremely rich person status with the right to out-shout middle-class working populations with their wealth.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 28, 2015 19:48:09 GMT -5
I just came across this clip in researching Bill Maher after his comment about Chris Kyle (American Sniper) being a “psychopathic patriot”. Interesting discussion, with lots of (for the time being) unanswerable questions. But, I agree. This is a Muslim problem – how are they going to step up to the plate? (I had previously posted links to the Ismailis on this board, that was summarily dismissed as “Not Real Muslims”. I disagree. This is a group of people who are more evolved any Christian (or any other persuasion) group that I know. I know individuals who are more evolved, but no groups. I had peripherally been aware of Bill Mayer before, but never paid much attention to him. After his Chris Kyle comment, I was shocked to find the number of issues that I probably agree with him on. I still think he is out to lunch on “American Sniper”. As other critics have expressed it is “Not a black and white film; it is an honest film.” I also became acquainted with the term " apatheist", which I had never come across before. The point I got from Bill Maher was that the movie, whether it had social value or not, glorified a specific individual who in real life claimed some pathologically high from knocking off people by ambush. Only in the military can one act out such a fantasy. Goes to show that God made very kind of individual for a reason, and every one has a place somewhere in life.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 28, 2015 19:50:35 GMT -5
I just came across this clip in researching Bill Maher after his comment about Chris Kyle (American Sniper) being a “psychopathic patriot”. Interesting discussion, with lots of (for the time being) unanswerable questions. But, I agree. This is a Muslim problem – how are they going to step up to the plate? (I had previously posted links to the Ismailis on this board, that was summarily dismissed as “Not Real Muslims”. I disagree. This is a group of people who are more evolved any Christian (or any other persuasion) group that I know. I know individuals who are more evolved, but no groups. I had peripherally been aware of Bill Mayer before, but never paid much attention to him. After his Chris Kyle comment, I was shocked to find the number of issues that I probably agree with him on. I still think he is out to lunch on “American Sniper”. As other critics have expressed it is “Not a black and white film; it is an honest film.” I also became acquainted with the term " apatheist", which I had never come across before. That was an interesting dialogue. Salman Rushdie made the most sense, e.g. this is a conflict within Islam not so much, here I am supposing, against Islam. Carly Fiorina I remember as an unsuccessful computer CEO for Compaq Computer. She just did not get Maher's point that religious ideology generally speaking leads to the kind of bad effects we see in Islam, even though Christianity got past the worst effects, for the most part. I didn't hear anything about 'American Sniper' in this clip. Just another American Rambo, some of my American friends have said. Apparently Kyle wrote in his memoir “I hate the damn savages,” “I couldn’t give a flying f*** about the Iraqis.”" I wonder if that made the movie or if they sanitized the character. I just saw 'Theory of Everything' and it was great. Both 'Wild' and 'Imitation Game' are on my list. I'll take a pass on 'American Sniper', I think. Aren't the top snipers all Canadian, in any case? "American Sniper" is nominated for the Oscars' Best Picture. On the top of MY list (hubby agrees, though we are very different people). I have seen almost all the rest of the nominations this year. 2014 was a good crop. I'm 3/4 the way through Kyle's memoir. Very interesting. Kinda over-the-top macho, in the best tradition of James Frey's "Million Little Pieces". I don't get it, but accept that "It's a guy thing". But very interesting. A product of his time and society, in much the same way Hitler was. But I still have to admire his excellence in what he believed in and have a problem with the dismissiveness of the "Psychopath patriot" terminology. Nothing is black and white. (Eastwood is so good at this.) No easy answers. Very interesting to watch the controversy over this movie, and the astonishing variance in interpretation. It confirms for me that "We don't see things as they are, but as we are."
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 28, 2015 19:52:08 GMT -5
The point I got from Bill Maher was that the movie, whether it had social value or not, glorified a specific individual who in real life claimed some pathologically high from knocking off people by ambush. Only in the military can one act out such a fantasy. Goes to show that God made very kind of individual for a reason, and every one has a place somewhere in life. That was one of the most interesting of all Bill Maher's episodes.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 28, 2015 19:52:49 GMT -5
I'm concerned about carbon dioxide emissions in general. However, the issue of buying products is a double-edged sword. If I boycotted a company that exploited garment workers in Bangla-Desh, say, I'd also be putting those workers out of work and they would starve. I don't shop at Wal-Mart except on very rare occasion because I dislike the entire supply-chain system they use. The reasons are slightly different in Wal-Mart's case. I don't like the idea of super cargo ships strung across the Pacific Ocean carrying mountains full of future landfill material manufactured under conditions which abuse labour and the environment while we put ourselves out of work and lose our ability to do much beside watch TV commercials and drive to Wal-Mart to buy more junk. So I don't shop there. But I don't really feel like I should boycott an oil company because of what Shell does in Nigeria, say. It's complex. First, I don't blame capitalism as a system anymore than I would blame democracy because Hitler was voted into power. When I blame "Western capitalism" I mean "capitalism and its Western practitioners" not a free market economy, trade or the mechanism of capital investment. They are just mechanisms. I also don't see "Western capitalism" or its purveyors as wholly good or wholly bad. I'm not looking for a sea change in the system. I see the actors within Western capitalism as doing some good things and some bad things. It's important to identify the bad things and try to correct them. As an example, we know monopolies are bad and we have anti-trust laws preventing them from forming. I don't believe that markets self-correct and purge bad actors. They might if markets were truly free but they are never free. But I also am not fond of over-regulation. Government bureaucracies tend to be lazy and reactive and the number one problem is enforcement; the rules are often already there. I think there are answers though, but I don't think there are any magic bullets that will solve all the problems. I am rather outraged at the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, the widespread poverty and hunger in the world, the amount of military intervention that is unwarranted, and on and on. I don't blame anyone in particular for the situation of the world. There is no easy solution. Given that, I do bridle at views that take either one of the following form: 1) The people of a particular race | country | religion | neighbourhood are to blame for the hunger | poverty | destitution | homelessness that they face. 2) Our capitalist | democratic | American | European system or way of life is responsible for our success. If everyone acted in as virtuous | hard working | intelligent fashion as we did, they would have our high standard of living as well. Generally I believe views or notions of that form exist mainly to dismiss the plight of others in some respect and deflect us from looking at ourselves and our own systems. It's not that I think a particular country shouldn't take responsibility for what happens there. If Nigeria is ruled by a despot, why don't the people kick him out? But we often have a responsibility too. These rulers use brutal repression to stay in power, and who provides them with the arms? Why does Shell pay large sums to a few despots which they then use to keep themselves in power and brutalize their public? Why is there abject poverty in Nigeria and a small super-wealthy class as well? Don't get me wrong. We don't always do the wrong thing with countries like Nigeria. It looks like Obama and Kerry are trying to do the right thing as far as making sure the election takes place. But it's never hard to identify when the "right thing" is done. It's much harder to identify and convince people when wrong things are done. Right things are done in the light, and wrong things are done in the dark. This is why the Iraqi invasion of 2003 was such a low point in Western foreign relations. We all were lied to about the reason for going in. By "we" I mean me, my friends and neighbours and the heads of state of 40 foreign countries. Thank you, Jean Chretien for not believing the lies. And then we were BS'd and lied to right along during the whole operation. Now we have ISIS as a direct consequence of the mistakes that were made. And now, 11 or 12 years later the deeds that were done in darkness are coming to light. My view on the mistakes is that mistakes do happen and it was almost inevitable that what happened would happen. The warnings and analysis of what could happen were all there at the outset, but brushed aside, ignored, and replaced with false hopes and promises based on a false ideology that the Western system transplanted to Iraq would be a magic fix. What we actually have now is not capitalism as it was designed to function. Instead, we have predatory capitalism, nurtured by the insane notion that people exist for the health of corporations, which have succeeded in manipulating laws so that they are the de facto government, rather than the agents of the people. In the US they have actually now achieved "person" status -- extremely rich person status with the right to out-shout middle-class working populations with their wealth. If you can beg, borrow or steal 'The Corporation'. It has been on Netflix. It's a bit far left and I disagree with some of the economic analysis but the evidence on which they make their argument is very strong. You can actually watch the whole thing in lo-def on youtube .... www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHrhqtY2khcWeb site here - www.thecorporation.com/
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 28, 2015 20:00:51 GMT -5
That was an interesting dialogue. Salman Rushdie made the most sense, e.g. this is a conflict within Islam not so much, here I am supposing, against Islam. Carly Fiorina I remember as an unsuccessful computer CEO for Compaq Computer. She just did not get Maher's point that religious ideology generally speaking leads to the kind of bad effects we see in Islam, even though Christianity got past the worst effects, for the most part. I didn't hear anything about 'American Sniper' in this clip. Just another American Rambo, some of my American friends have said. Apparently Kyle wrote in his memoir “I hate the damn savages,” “I couldn’t give a flying f*** about the Iraqis.”" I wonder if that made the movie or if they sanitized the character. I just saw 'Theory of Everything' and it was great. Both 'Wild' and 'Imitation Game' are on my list. I'll take a pass on 'American Sniper', I think. Aren't the top snipers all Canadian, in any case? "American Sniper" is nominated for the Oscars' Best Picture. On the top of MY list (hubby agrees, though we are very different people). I have seen almost all the rest of the nominations this year. 2014 was a good crop. I'm 3/4 the way through Kyle's memoir. Very interesting. Kinda over-the-top macho, in the best tradition of James Frey's "Million Little Pieces". I don't get it, but accept that "It's a guy thing". But very interesting. A product of his time and society, in much the same way Hitler was. But I still have to admire his excellence in what he believed in and have a problem with the dismissiveness of the "Psychopath patriot" terminology. Nothing is black and white. (Eastwood is so good at this.) No easy answers. Very interesting to watch the controversy over this movie, and the astonishing variance in interpretation. It confirms for me that "We don't see things as they are, but as we are." Your last comment is very incisive, and I have far less issue with the movie, well, I haven't even seen it, than with the glorification by some parties of military heroes. I do like quite a number of war movies; probably 'Das Boot' is my favourite. So, if you've seen the whole list, do you think Eddie Redmayne deserves 'best actor' for his portrayal of Stephen Hawking? I was awed by his performance but I have not seen anyone else on the list, so I've wondered if he could win it. He did get the Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild awards in that category.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 28, 2015 20:16:41 GMT -5
So, if you've seen the whole list, do you think Eddie Redmayne deserves 'best actor' for his portrayal of Stephen Hawking? I was awed by his performance but I have not seen anyone else on the list, so I've wondered if he could win it. He did get the Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild awards in that category. Yeah, probably. But I have to acknowledge, that anyone could fold themselves up in a contorted position in a wheelchair and most of us would probably stop really 'looking' at them. But that is more about us than about them. I have not seen Foxcatcher, but I would not be upset at any of the rest of the nominations winning either. As I said earlier, it's been a good year.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 28, 2015 20:38:55 GMT -5
I think we both share a hatred of oppression and an empathy for the underdog, but our views on the cause and the solution vary widely. Do you personally boycott all of the petrol companie I'm concerned about carbon dioxide emissions in general. However, the issue of buying products is a double-edged sword. If I boycotted a company that exploited garment workers in Bangla-Desh, say, I'd also be putting those workers out of work and they would starve. I don't shop at Wal-Mart except on very rare occasion because I dislike the entire supply-chain system they use. The reasons are slightly different in Wal-Mart's case. I don't like the idea of super cargo ships strung across the Pacific Ocean carrying mountains full of future landfill material manufactured under conditions which abuse labour and the environment while we put ourselves out of work and lose our ability to do much beside watch TV commercials and drive to Wal-Mart to buy more junk. So I don't shop there. But I don't really feel like I should boycott an oil company because of what Shell does in Nigeria, say. It's complex. First, I don't blame capitalism as a system anymore than I would blame democracy because Hitler was voted into power. When I blame "Western capitalism" I mean "capitalism and its Western practitioners" not a free market economy, trade or the mechanism of capital investment. They are just mechanisms. I also don't see "Western capitalism" or its purveyors as wholly good or wholly bad. I'm not looking for a sea change in the system. I see the actors within Western capitalism as doing some good things and some bad things. It's important to identify the bad things and try to correct them. As an example, we know monopolies are bad and we have anti-trust laws preventing them from forming. I don't believe that markets self-correct and purge bad actors. They might if markets were truly free but they are never free. But I also am not fond of over-regulation. Government bureaucracies tend to be lazy and reactive and the number one problem is enforcement; the rules are often already there. I think there are answers though, but I don't think there are any magic bullets that will solve all the problems. I am rather outraged at the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, the widespread poverty and hunger in the world, the amount of military intervention that is unwarranted, and on and on. I don't blame anyone in particular for the situation of the world. There is no easy solution. Given that, I do bridle at views that take either one of the following form: 1) The people of a particular race | country | religion | neighbourhood are to blame for the hunger | poverty | destitution | homelessness that they face. 2) Our capitalist | democratic | American | European system or way of life is responsible for our success. If everyone acted in as virtuous | hard working | intelligent fashion as we did, they would have our high standard of living as well. Generally I believe views or notions of that form exist mainly to dismiss the plight of others in some respect and deflect us from looking at ourselves and our own systems. It's not that I think a particular country shouldn't take responsibility for what happens there. If Nigeria is ruled by a despot, why don't the people kick him out? But we often have a responsibility too. These rulers use brutal repression to stay in power, and who provides them with the arms? Why does Shell pay large sums to a few despots which they then use to keep themselves in power and brutalize their public? Why is there abject poverty in Nigeria and a small super-wealthy class as well? Don't get me wrong. We don't always do the wrong thing with countries like Nigeria. It looks like Obama and Kerry are trying to do the right thing as far as making sure the election takes place. But it's never hard to identify when the "right thing" is done. It's much harder to identify and convince people when wrong things are done. Right things are done in the light, and wrong things are done in the dark. This is why the Iraqi invasion of 2003 was such a low point in Western foreign relations. We all were lied to about the reason for going in. By "we" I mean me, my friends and neighbours and the heads of state of 40 foreign countries. Thank you, Jean Chretien for not believing the lies. And then we were BS'd and lied to right along during the whole operation. Now we have ISIS as a direct consequence of the mistakes that were made. And now, 11 or 12 years later the deeds that were done in darkness are coming to light. My view on the mistakes is that mistakes do happen and it was almost inevitable that what happened would happen. The warnings and analysis of what could happen were all there at the outset, but brushed aside, ignored, and replaced with false hopes and promises based on a false ideology that the Western system transplanted to Iraq would be a magic fix. We shouldn't have invaded in 2003. We should have continued to work at, and enforce the UN inspections at point of a gun, if necessary. We should let these Muslim countries solve their own problems even if it means that a dictator stays in power. At the same time we shouldn't offer aid and arms to dictators and despotic countries the way they do. There you go, what hat's foreign policy. Hind sight is always 20-20. I think you're all over the place, but thanks for taking the time to post it for us. I agree with you to a substantial extent I think, but I also disagree with you to a substantial extent. I "think" we agree on how the world should be, but we disagree on how to get there.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 28, 2015 21:50:38 GMT -5
Yknot, I had a skim back through your posts (there is a way to do that from the "Members" section if anyone is interested) to try and support my assertion that "The problem I detect in your thinking, and moreso in that of fixit's, is that you have trouble accepting that there is any problem with Western culture; or with the products or influences of Western culture." This was really an impression and I thought I would put it out there; I do think you think more of Western culture and Western ways than it rightfully deserves. There are aspects and components of Western culture that are meritorious, but much of the legacy of the West has been terrible and destructive, IMO. The other day, my history group was discussing the effects of eugenics, a notion that was widespread and very popular in the early part of the 20th Century in the West. I don't believe that eugenics was an anomaly but rather a product of our dualistic, ethnocentric thinking in the West. Sentences like the one I underlined above, in reference to the USA, display a large amount of the hubris characteristic of Americans. It would be impossible to assess whether the USA cares as much as other nations when the chips are down. American do care, and care a lot, for which we can be grateful, but they're also pretty boastful about how much they care. I don't think that they care more than the British, the Dutch, the French or the Italians. How would we know? At least in those countries there is far more awareness of what's happening in the world compared to the USA. On your second point, giving as much as the rest of the human species can be quantified and the USA is below the mean in the West. The USA actually ranks 20th among Western countries in development assistance as a percentage of national income. The rest of the claims strike me as spurious as well. I suppose the comment is a criticism, but I didn't mean it as a personal criticism. I meant it as a characterisation of how I see your viewpoint, and the viewpoint of many other Americans. I'm not sure if that helps, but I hope it does. I do very much appreciate your erudition, depth of knowledge and most of all, your ongoing effort to move the debate forward in interesting and positive directions. Hi whathat, first let me thank you for the courtesy of your response. By acknowledging your point of view, it is important to me to state clearly that I do not share your point of view. After reviewing the specific comment I made that apparently prompted your "impression" of my "thinking" and fostered your decision "to put it out there", I feel no need nor desire to amend or modify that statement. I believe what I said and said what I believe. You have the opinion (as you have every right to have) that I "think more of Western culture and Western ways than it rightfully deserves". This is a quantitative sentence ("more . . . . than") with a qualitative quantifier "rightfully deserves". I am very interested in who decides what is "rightfully deserved" (by whom am I being judged?). Once you have identified who is doing the judging maybe you will share with us the criteria used to titrate and measure just how much Western culture/ways is "just a smidgen too little, more than what is rightfully deserved or just the precisely correct amount"? Again, I respect your right to the opinion that "the legacy of the West has been terrible and destructive, IMO". But allow me to make it abundantly clear, I reject your right to challenge the openness or quality of my thinking based on how my comments/opinions measures-up against your opinions. If you believe that the openness, sincerity, depth or scope of knowledge/experience of my thinking warrants challenge, say so and let's discuss you specific concern. But please do not independently decide based on variance from your own opinions that my "thinking" is deficient and just decide "to put it out there". I hope that request sounds reasonable to you. I hope that I have a chance to attend your history group with you some day. I too am deeply troubled by the legacy of eugenics. Like you, I do not believe that eugenics was an anomaly. Rather it emerged from the sciences and was actively embraced by the intellectual community at a time of significant social unrest and Utopian visions. Was it the "product of our dualistic, ethnocentric thinking"? In my opinion, that conclusion is at best superficial. I am not a fan of euphemisms that salve the collective conscious without committing to the hard work of honest critical thinking. Search and reflect on the 20th century's history of genocide, read Samantha Powers book "A Problem From Hell", think about Darfur today or Rawanda 20 years ago. Does "dualistic ethnocentric thinking" really provide intellectual cover for the suffering or stimulus for meaningful action?. My vote will be "No!". Hubris - excessive pride. As before, I ask again who is the judge, who is it that is deciding that a person's pride is excessive and by what criteria. Is this another example of your decision to arrogate to self the judgment of excessive. Clearly, you have every right to do so but also recognize I need not concur. What intrigues me is that you are comfortable relying on judgments of what is "more . . . . than" "rightfully deserved". And you are qualified to quantitatively measure "excessive pride", but when it comes to specifics, suddenly things become "impossible to assess". Well . . . . not really everything is impossible to assess. If a data point comes to mind in favor of your conjecture, such as "ranks 20th among . . .", that we can use that data point to assess, but everything else, well that is impossible. Help me out here, what's really going on? Of course the rest of the claims will strike you as spurious, take just a moment and consider the perspective from which you are starting to judge them. My experience has been that it is unwise to focus on deficiencies of another's perspective when attempting to puzzle through complex questions in an open, honest and constructive way. Recognition and acknowledgement of specific and relevant deficiencies is always useful, if not critical. But when the deficiencies move to center stage, it is unsurprising that the baby goes out with the wash water. I sincerely appreciate your honest effort to back away from "personal criticism", but in honest response, I am unable see how the "impression" you decide "to throw out there" could be anything but "personal criticism". Perhaps we use the word "personal" differently. I can only tell you that by my way of thinking there are few things about a person's identity that are more personal than their "thinking". In my world, a person's "thinking" is a significant part of that person's essence. Again, thanks for your response. This has been a learning experience. One conclusion may be that you and I will be unable to objectively and respectfully discuss geopolitical issues. I sincerely hope that will not be the conclusion we ultimately adopt, for I would consider myself the loser in that event.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 28, 2015 22:07:43 GMT -5
What's really going on is that people are vexed about the ultimate status of the world, their lives, their families homes and communities. Quite naturally, the most powerful nation on earth will be the whipping child for better or worse, by the duly-concerned and the self-righteous elites!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 28, 2015 23:33:39 GMT -5
I'm concerned about carbon dioxide emissions in general. However, the issue of buying products is a double-edged sword. If I boycotted a company that exploited garment workers in Bangla-Desh, say, I'd also be putting those workers out of work and they would starve. I don't shop at Wal-Mart except on very rare occasion because I dislike the entire supply-chain system they use. The reasons are slightly different in Wal-Mart's case. I don't like the idea of super cargo ships strung across the Pacific Ocean carrying mountains full of future landfill material manufactured under conditions which abuse labour and the environment while we put ourselves out of work and lose our ability to do much beside watch TV commercials and drive to Wal-Mart to buy more junk. So I don't shop there. But I don't really feel like I should boycott an oil company because of what Shell does in Nigeria, say. It's complex. First, I don't blame capitalism as a system anymore than I would blame democracy because Hitler was voted into power. When I blame "Western capitalism" I mean "capitalism and its Western practitioners" not a free market economy, trade or the mechanism of capital investment. They are just mechanisms. I also don't see "Western capitalism" or its purveyors as wholly good or wholly bad. I'm not looking for a sea change in the system. I see the actors within Western capitalism as doing some good things and some bad things. It's important to identify the bad things and try to correct them. As an example, we know monopolies are bad and we have anti-trust laws preventing them from forming. I don't believe that markets self-correct and purge bad actors. They might if markets were truly free but they are never free. But I also am not fond of over-regulation. Government bureaucracies tend to be lazy and reactive and the number one problem is enforcement; the rules are often already there. I think there are answers though, but I don't think there are any magic bullets that will solve all the problems. I am rather outraged at the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, the widespread poverty and hunger in the world, the amount of military intervention that is unwarranted, and on and on. I don't blame anyone in particular for the situation of the world. There is no easy solution. Given that, I do bridle at views that take either one of the following form: 1) The people of a particular race | country | religion | neighbourhood are to blame for the hunger | poverty | destitution | homelessness that they face. 2) Our capitalist | democratic | American | European system or way of life is responsible for our success. If everyone acted in as virtuous | hard working | intelligent fashion as we did, they would have our high standard of living as well. Generally I believe views or notions of that form exist mainly to dismiss the plight of others in some respect and deflect us from looking at ourselves and our own systems. It's not that I think a particular country shouldn't take responsibility for what happens there. If Nigeria is ruled by a despot, why don't the people kick him out? But we often have a responsibility too. These rulers use brutal repression to stay in power, and who provides them with the arms? Why does Shell pay large sums to a few despots which they then use to keep themselves in power and brutalize their public? Why is there abject poverty in Nigeria and a small super-wealthy class as well? Don't get me wrong. We don't always do the wrong thing with countries like Nigeria. It looks like Obama and Kerry are trying to do the right thing as far as making sure the election takes place. But it's never hard to identify when the "right thing" is done. It's much harder to identify and convince people when wrong things are done. Right things are done in the light, and wrong things are done in the dark. This is why the Iraqi invasion of 2003 was such a low point in Western foreign relations. We all were lied to about the reason for going in. By "we" I mean me, my friends and neighbours and the heads of state of 40 foreign countries. Thank you, Jean Chretien for not believing the lies. And then we were BS'd and lied to right along during the whole operation. Now we have ISIS as a direct consequence of the mistakes that were made. And now, 11 or 12 years later the deeds that were done in darkness are coming to light. My view on the mistakes is that mistakes do happen and it was almost inevitable that what happened would happen. The warnings and analysis of what could happen were all there at the outset, but brushed aside, ignored, and replaced with false hopes and promises based on a false ideology that the Western system transplanted to Iraq would be a magic fix. We shouldn't have invaded in 2003. We should have continued to work at, and enforce the UN inspections at point of a gun, if necessary. We should let these Muslim countries solve their own problems even if it means that a dictator stays in power. At the same time we shouldn't offer aid and arms to dictators and despotic countries the way they do. There you go, what hat's foreign policy. Hind sight is always 20-20. I think you're all over the place, but thanks for taking the time to post it for us. I agree with you to a substantial extent I think, but I also disagree with you to a substantial extent. I "think" we agree on how the world should be, but we disagree on how to get there. Rant of the day.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 29, 2015 0:22:02 GMT -5
Yknot, I had a skim back through your posts (there is a way to do that from the "Members" section if anyone is interested) to try and support my assertion that "The problem I detect in your thinking, and moreso in that of fixit's, is that you have trouble accepting that there is any problem with Western culture; or with the products or influences of Western culture." This was really an impression and I thought I would put it out there; I do think you think more of Western culture and Western ways than it rightfully deserves. There are aspects and components of Western culture that are meritorious, but much of the legacy of the West has been terrible and destructive, IMO. The other day, my history group was discussing the effects of eugenics, a notion that was widespread and very popular in the early part of the 20th Century in the West. I don't believe that eugenics was an anomaly but rather a product of our dualistic, ethnocentric thinking in the West. Sentences like the one I underlined above, in reference to the USA, display a large amount of the hubris characteristic of Americans. It would be impossible to assess whether the USA cares as much as other nations when the chips are down. American do care, and care a lot, for which we can be grateful, but they're also pretty boastful about how much they care. I don't think that they care more than the British, the Dutch, the French or the Italians. How would we know? At least in those countries there is far more awareness of what's happening in the world compared to the USA. On your second point, giving as much as the rest of the human species can be quantified and the USA is below the mean in the West. The USA actually ranks 20th among Western countries in development assistance as a percentage of national income. The rest of the claims strike me as spurious as well. I suppose the comment is a criticism, but I didn't mean it as a personal criticism. I meant it as a characterisation of how I see your viewpoint, and the viewpoint of many other Americans. I'm not sure if that helps, but I hope it does. I do very much appreciate your erudition, depth of knowledge and most of all, your ongoing effort to move the debate forward in interesting and positive directions. Hi whathat, first let me thank you for the courtesy of your response. By acknowledging your point of view, it is important to me to state clearly that I do not share your point of view. After reviewing the specific comment I made that apparently prompted your "impression" of my "thinking" and fostered your decision "to put it out there", I feel no need nor desire to amend or modify that statement. I believe what I said and said what I believe. You have the opinion (as you have every right to have) that I "think more of Western culture and Western ways than it rightfully deserves". This is a quantitative sentence ("more . . . . than") with a qualitative quantifier "rightfully deserves". I am very interested in who decides what is "rightfully deserved" (by whom am I being judged?). Once you have identified who is doing the judging maybe you will share with us the criteria used to titrate and measure just how much Western culture/ways is "just a smidgen too little, more than what is rightfully deserved or just the precisely correct amount"? Again, I respect your right to the opinion that "the legacy of the West has been terrible and destructive, IMO". But allow me to make it abundantly clear, I reject your right to challenge the openness or quality of my thinking based on how my comments/opinions measures-up against your opinions. If you believe that the openness, sincerity, depth or scope of knowledge/experience of my thinking warrants challenge, say so and let's discuss you specific concern. But please do not independently decide based on variance from your own opinions that my "thinking" is deficient and just decide "to put it out there". I hope that request sounds reasonable to you. I hope that I have a chance to attend your history group with you some day. I too am deeply troubled by the legacy of eugenics. Like you, I do not believe that eugenics was an anomaly. Rather it emerged from the sciences and was actively embraced by the intellectual community at a time of significant social unrest and Utopian visions. Was it the "product of our dualistic, ethnocentric thinking"? In my opinion, that conclusion is at best superficial. I am not a fan of euphemisms that salve the collective conscious without committing to the hard work of honest critical thinking. Search and reflect on the 20th century's history of genocide, read Samantha Powers book "A Problem From Hell", think about Darfur today or Rawanda 20 years ago. Does "dualistic ethnocentric thinking" really provide intellectual cover for the suffering or stimulus for meaningful action?. My vote will be "No!". Hubris - excessive pride. As before, I ask again who is the judge, who is it that is deciding that a person's pride is excessive and by what criteria. Is this another example of your decision to arrogate to self the judgment of excessive. Clearly, you have every right to do so but also recognize I need not concur. What intrigues me is that you are comfortable relying on judgments of what is "more . . . . than" "rightfully deserved". And you are qualified to quantitatively measure "excessive pride", but when it comes to specifics, suddenly things become "impossible to assess". Well . . . . not really everything is impossible to assess. If a data point comes to mind in favor of your conjecture, such as "ranks 20th among . . .", that we can use that data point to assess, but everything else, well that is impossible. Help me out here, what's really going on? Of course the rest of the claims will strike you as spurious, take just a moment and consider the perspective from which you are starting to judge them. My experience has been that it is unwise to focus on deficiencies of another's perspective when attempting to puzzle through complex questions in an open, honest and constructive way. Recognition and acknowledgement of specific and relevant deficiencies is always useful, if not critical. But when the deficiencies move to center stage, it is unsurprising that the baby goes out with the wash water. I sincerely appreciate your honest effort to back away from "personal criticism", but in honest response, I am unable see how the "impression" you decide "to throw out there" could be anything but "personal criticism". Perhaps we use the word "personal" differently. I can only tell you that by my way of thinking there are few things about a person's identity that are more personal than their "thinking". In my world, a person's "thinking" is a significant part of that person's essence. Again, thanks for your response. This has been a learning experience. One conclusion may be that you and I will be unable to objectively and respectfully discuss geopolitical issues. I sincerely hope that will not be the conclusion we ultimately adopt, for I would consider myself the loser in that event. I just want to take a really quick cut at this before turning in. First, I did not have that post in mind when I made my comment. I didn't have any post specifically in mind, but I put out what I perceive to be a subtext in conservative thought, and in the case of this thread in both your thinking and 'fixit's. Although you are each quite different and unique as well. So when you asked for substantiation I looked for a post or posts that would show some evidence of that subtext and scrolling back through, this was the first relevant post I saw. I didn't need to do this but I thought I would take a cut at it. My initial comment wasn't meant as a critique, and did not relate to any one post. I didn't give you a critique; I gave you my impression, and you're free to accept or reject it. It could have been wrong or inaccurate in your case; that's what discussion is for. I've never had a sense that it was pejorative in any way. You do have a trust in the pillars of Western culture that is stronger than my trust; perhaps I should have phrased it in more neutral fashion. The phrase "impossible to assess" was a criticism of your commment that the USA cares as much as other nations when the chips are down. I believe that is impossible to assess, so how can you make such a claim? The other claims you made I find either untrue or similarly difficult to substantiate. I already knew that the USA was far down the list in overseas aid as a percentage of GDP. So when you made your claim I had to spend time sourcing the actual statistic. I simply don't have time to research and refute each point of claims which are as you say, what you believe. The goal was only to show that what you believe about America bears a trace of the subtext that you think more of Western culture than it rightfully deserves, and this paragraph suited the purpose. This is what you asked me to do so this is what I tried to show. I really don't have time to support the entire thesis. I know you are well steeped in Western philosophy, British jurisprudence and the foundations of democracy, and the effect of American independence and the thought and contribution of Paine, Emerson, Jefferson and so on, on the possibilities for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within human society. These are all milestones in the history of human progress to be sure. But I also have a feeling that you place more trust and weight on these elements in terms of their contribution to our current human condition than might be warranted. I don't consider that a personal criticism in any way, but a contrast between my general disposition and yours. But I mention it because it was also at the back of my mind when I made my statement. If we consider what "Western culture" is about then we have also to consider the genocide of many American indigenous peoples, the Holocaust, the genocide in the 1920s in Namibia, Belgium in the Congo and other atrocities. There have been other examples of genocide outside western culture - Rwanda, Cambodia, the rape of Nanking, and so on. I believe each of those is also a product of and bound up with culture in some way. I've taken a particular interest in Japanese culture before WWII and after. It was a completely militaristic society and in a sense, and certainly the preoccupation of post WWII Japanese film, collectively lost its sense of humanity. A different culture, but ideology worked there in the same way that it has worked at times in western culture. Have you read Josef Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"? This short novel is based on the Belgian experience in the Congo and raises questions about how far humanity has actually come. It does give pause to the notion that Western society has made any progress at all. So does the experience in Iraq. And Coppola found in "Heart of Darkness" a ready narrative to explain, right or wrong, what happened to America in Vietnam. It's interesting to see panelists on a TV show (Bill Maher) discuss the Muslims. I don't watch talk shows or news shows, but I imagine that 'Charlie Hebdo' was discussed over and over. People are trying to come to grips with beheadings and slave prostitutes in the Middle East. But Bill Maher or his ilk didn't sit around and discuss the effects of phosphorus and cluster bombs on Sunni's during the seige of Fallujah did they? That clip brought home to me how much people must get a one sided picture of what is going on in the Middle East. A steady dose of the horrors that the Muslims perpetrate, but nothing on us. Maybe I'm wrong about this as I don't get the media exposure.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 29, 2015 3:44:06 GMT -5
The phrase "impossible to assess" was a criticism of your commment that the USA cares as much as other nations when the chips are down. I believe that is impossible to assess, so how can you make such a claim. The other claims you made which I find either untrue or similarly difficult to substantiate. If it's impossible to assess that the USA cares as much as other nations when the chips are down, then how can you assess that the USA doesn't care as much as other nations? The army of your mother country of the Netherlands surrendered after four days of fighting Germany in WW2. Thankfully the USA cared enough about Europe to lead an invasion of the continent and liberate countries that had no hope of liberating themselves from Hitler's control. United States aid and military power enabled Europe to recover and prosper in spite of Stalin's desire to enslave it with Communist dictatorship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 4:14:19 GMT -5
I'm sure there are highly educated Muslims, but large numbers of children are not in school or in radicalisation schools. I'm genuinely interested in suggestions for how the West could help the Islamic world going forward. Treat them like fellow human beings. Will you be advising governments? Yep, treat them with respect as we would like them to treat us with respect. Try to convince them by gentle persuasion rather than by confrontational aggressions and brute force; the "tit for tat" method of fighting fire with fire is not working very well on either side, it spells disaster for us all, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 29, 2015 5:55:58 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong. We don't always do the wrong thing with countries like Nigeria. It looks like Obama and Kerry are trying to do the right thing as far as making sure the election takes place. But it's never hard to identify when the "right thing" is done. It's much harder to identify and convince people when wrong things are done. Right things are done in the light, and wrong things are done in the dark. This is why the Iraqi invasion of 2003 was such a low point in Western foreign relations. We all were lied to about the reason for going in. By "we" I mean me, my friends and neighbours and the heads of state of 40 foreign countries. Thank you, Jean Chretien for not believing the lies. And then we were BS'd and lied to right along during the whole operation. Now we have ISIS as a direct consequence of the mistakes that were made. And now, 11 or 12 years later the deeds that were done in darkness are coming to light. My view on the mistakes is that mistakes do happen and it was almost inevitable that what happened would happen. The warnings and analysis of what could happen were all there at the outset, but brushed aside, ignored, and replaced with false hopes and promises based on a false ideology that the Western system transplanted to Iraq would be a magic fix. It's difficult convincing people when the "wrong" thing is done if it's not as "wrong" as you think. There was faulty intelligence regarding Saddam's WMD, but it wasn't the great big conspiracy you seem to think it was. Iraqi dissidents exaggerated the issue, and that's understandable. Saddam was trashing their country and they were desperate for the West to rid their country of an evil regime. Yes, of course US intelligence should have been more accurate but it was more fear-driven incompetence than outright deception. You agree that military action against ISIS is justified, yet as I said earlier Saddam's Iraqi regime will probably go down in history as more dangerous and destructive than ISIS. The following was written shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began: I don't buy that ISIS resulted from the Iraq war. Sure, it's leader did time in an Iraqi prison but the biggest reason that ISIS has been so successful is because of the power vacuum in Syria and Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 29, 2015 7:36:16 GMT -5
The phrase "impossible to assess" was a criticism of your commment that the USA cares as much as other nations when the chips are down. I believe that is impossible to assess, so how can you make such a claim. The other claims you made which I find either untrue or similarly difficult to substantiate. If it's impossible to assess that the USA cares as much as other nations when the chips are down, then how can you assess that the USA doesn't care as much as other nations? I didn't say that. Maybe they do, and not relevant. The USA did nothing during that invasion and tried to stay out of WWII. They only came in after Pearl Harbour. Holland was ultimately liberated by Canada. The Second War represented a sea change in American foreign policy.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 29, 2015 13:04:39 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong. We don't always do the wrong thing with countries like Nigeria. It looks like Obama and Kerry are trying to do the right thing as far as making sure the election takes place. But it's never hard to identify when the "right thing" is done. It's much harder to identify and convince people when wrong things are done. Right things are done in the light, and wrong things are done in the dark. This is why the Iraqi invasion of 2003 was such a low point in Western foreign relations. We all were lied to about the reason for going in. By "we" I mean me, my friends and neighbours and the heads of state of 40 foreign countries. Thank you, Jean Chretien for not believing the lies. And then we were BS'd and lied to right along during the whole operation. Now we have ISIS as a direct consequence of the mistakes that were made. And now, 11 or 12 years later the deeds that were done in darkness are coming to light. My view on the mistakes is that mistakes do happen and it was almost inevitable that what happened would happen. The warnings and analysis of what could happen were all there at the outset, but brushed aside, ignored, and replaced with false hopes and promises based on a false ideology that the Western system transplanted to Iraq would be a magic fix. It's difficult convincing people when the "wrong" thing is done if it's not as "wrong" as you think. There was faulty intelligence regarding Saddam's WMD, but it wasn't the great big conspiracy you seem to think it was. Iraqi dissidents exaggerated the issue, and that's understandable. Saddam was trashing their country and they were desperate for the West to rid their country of an evil regime. Yes, of course US intelligence should have been more accurate but it was more fear-driven incompetence than outright deception. You agree that military action against ISIS is justified, yet as I said earlier Saddam's Iraqi regime will probably go down in history as more dangerous and destructive than ISIS. The following was written shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began: I don't buy that ISIS resulted from the Iraq war. Sure, it's leader did time in an Iraqi prison but the biggest reason that ISIS has been so successful is because of the power vacuum in Syria and Iraq. I only just skim read the NY Times article, but based on that and your previous post, I believe now that the primary motivation for the Iraq invasion was a moral imperative on the part of George W. Bush. I have wondered and not really understood why the US wanted to invade so badly. The idea that the USA was in there just for the oil was not really satisfactory, although it is an element. Generally, if a country has a resource that the USA wants, then there are American business interests involved. But I'm going with the moral imperative idea. Not that that is sufficient grounds, in my view. Military actions in places like Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Libya and so on, have always come under the aegis of either the UN or NATO. And we were lied to about the WMD. I've noticed a pattern in some evangelical Christians (I think GWB is one, loosely speaking), that moral scruples dissolve in the path of a great moral imperative. Moral imperatives are a dangerous thing. An extreme example of this phenomenon are the 'right to life' fanatics who murdered abortion doctors, an action that was justified in their minds in order to save a fetus. Similary, we really need to get Saddam, so it's okay to lie about WMD. It's also okay to bypass NATO and the UN. It's also okay to not recognize the sovereignty of the Iraqi government and people. It's also okay that the invasion is illegal under international law. Did the US cause ISIS? ISIS is a coalition of extremists, but I think, two main groups, embittered Iraqi Sunni's and a world-wide assortment of al Qaeda and Taliban types. The Iraqi Sunni's seem to have provided the geographical base. Had the US been more careful to include the Sunni's in the Iraqi government initially, the insurgency would not have happened and Iraq could have moved toward healing. The order to disbar the Sunni's completely came from on high; the US military people were against it. I wonder if again, this was a moral imperative gone awry. All speculation, but one thing is certain. Al Qaeda and the various extremists would not have a land base without the Iraqi Sunni's. It seems that their ostracisation could have been prevented with a little more wisdom and foresight. Actually, the wisdom and foresight was there, but it was overruled.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 29, 2015 13:12:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 29, 2015 13:39:55 GMT -5
It's difficult convincing people when the "wrong" thing is done if it's not as "wrong" as you think. So we all have noticed. I get it. We were wrong, but so was everyone else, so by default we were right. I'll call it the "Fixit Philosophy". You have a point. ISIS is wrong, but the Muslims all hate them, so ISIS must be our friends after all. Eventually the Holocaust may go away too. So, this power vacuum in Iraq, who pray tell created it? Sadam Hussein didn't just implode on himself. And I don't recall that he dismantled the whole Iraqi government structure before he committed suicide. Now that you have discovered that ISIS flourishes because of a power vacuum, you need to learn some things about how power vacuums are created, and the pragmatic steps that have to be considered in order to prevent them from occurring.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 29, 2015 13:57:18 GMT -5
I only just skim read the NY Times article, but based on that and your previous post, I believe now that the primary motivation for the Iraq invasion was a moral imperative on the part of George W. Bush. I have wondered and not really understood why the US wanted to invade so badly. The idea that the USA was in there just for the oil was not really satisfactory, although it is an element. Generally, if a country has a resource that the USA wants, then there are American business interests involved. But I'm going with the moral imperative idea. Oil is an element - but mainly because of the danger Iraq's belligerent regime posed to world stability. Iraq wanted Kuwait, the second largest oil producer in the Middle East and one of the richest and most progressive countries in the world. Iraq also wanted Saudi Arabia and the other weak Gulf oil producers. It would have been irresponsible to allow massive oil wealth in the hands of a tyrant surrounded by weak countries. Did the US cause ISIS? ISIS is a coalition of extremists, but I think, two main groups, embittered Iraqi Sunni's and a world-wide assortment of al Qaeda and Taliban types. The Iraqi Sunni's seem to have provided the geographical base. Had the US been more careful to include the Sunni's in the Iraqi government initially, the insurgency would not have happened and Iraq could have moved toward healing. The order to disbar the Sunni's completely came from on high; the US military people were against it. I wonder if again, this was a moral imperative gone awry. All speculation, but one thing is certain. Al Qaeda and the various extremists would not have a land base without the Iraqi Sunni's. It seems that their ostracisation could have been prevented with a little more wisdom and foresight. Actually, the wisdom and foresight was there, but it was overruled. The Sunni minority had ruled Iraq with cruelty for decades. Naturally the Sunnis would be angry that their position of privilege was gone and naturally the Shia wanted revenge. The Coalition was working towards representative government. Yes, big mistakes were made and I'm sure the military would have done a lot better job of setting Iraq on its feet as it did with Japan and Germany. Especially if someone like Petraeus had been in charge from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 29, 2015 14:48:45 GMT -5
There was faulty intelligence regarding Saddam's WMD, but it wasn't the great big conspiracy you seem to think it was. Iraqi dissidents exaggerated the issue, and that's understandable. Saddam was trashing their country and they were desperate for the West to rid their country of an evil regime. Yes, of course US intelligence should have been more accurate but it was more fear-driven incompetence than outright deception. There wasn't faulty intelligence regarding Saddam's WMD'S, AND BUSH KNEW THE TRUTH OF THE REPORT.
He just plain lied.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 29, 2015 15:11:46 GMT -5
what does daesh mean? I have looked up on the internet but cannot find the meaning except it says name of ISIL but I know it does not mean that. I've heard it a few times but forget.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 29, 2015 15:25:24 GMT -5
Apparently Kyle wrote in his memoir “I hate the damn savages,” “I couldn’t give a flying f*** about the Iraqis.”" I wonder if that made the movie or if they sanitized the character. When he was asked how he felt about Bradley Cooper portraying him the movie, Chris Kyle replied "I'm going to have to tie him to my truck and drag him down the street to knock some of the pretty off him." I think that might help put any quotes of his, particularly any taken out of context, into some sort of perspective.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 29, 2015 15:30:15 GMT -5
I just want to take a really quick cut at this before turning in. . . . . . . . Thanks What Hat. I suggest that adequate justifications have been exchanged for the time being. I have palpable fear that PETA will be after me for continuing to beat a very dead horse . . . . .
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 29, 2015 15:45:46 GMT -5
There was faulty intelligence regarding Saddam's WMD, but it wasn't the great big conspiracy you seem to think it was. Iraqi dissidents exaggerated the issue, and that's understandable. Saddam was trashing their country and they were desperate for the West to rid their country of an evil regime. Yes, of course US intelligence should have been more accurate but it was more fear-driven incompetence than outright deception. There wasn't faulty intelligence regarding Saddam's WMD'S, AND BUSH KNEW THE TRUTH OF THE REPORT.
He just plain lied.
Prove it!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 29, 2015 16:01:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 29, 2015 16:53:37 GMT -5
I only just skim read the NY Times article, but based on that and your previous post, I believe now that the primary motivation for the Iraq invasion was a moral imperative on the part of George W. Bush. I have wondered and not really understood why the US wanted to invade so badly. The idea that the USA was in there just for the oil was not really satisfactory, although it is an element. Generally, if a country has a resource that the USA wants, then there are American business interests involved. But I'm going with the moral imperative idea. Oil is an element - but mainly because of the danger Iraq's belligerent regime posed to world stability. Iraq wanted Kuwait, the second largest oil producer in the Middle East and one of the richest and most progressive countries in the world. Iraq also wanted Saudi Arabia and the other weak Gulf oil producers. It would have been irresponsible to allow massive oil wealth in the hands of a tyrant surrounded by weak countries. Did the US cause ISIS? ISIS is a coalition of extremists, but I think, two main groups, embittered Iraqi Sunni's and a world-wide assortment of al Qaeda and Taliban types. The Iraqi Sunni's seem to have provided the geographical base. Had the US been more careful to include the Sunni's in the Iraqi government initially, the insurgency would not have happened and Iraq could have moved toward healing. The order to disbar the Sunni's completely came from on high; the US military people were against it. I wonder if again, this was a moral imperative gone awry. All speculation, but one thing is certain. Al Qaeda and the various extremists would not have a land base without the Iraqi Sunni's. It seems that their ostracisation could have been prevented with a little more wisdom and foresight. Actually, the wisdom and foresight was there, but it was overruled. The Sunni minority had ruled Iraq with cruelty for decades. Naturally the Sunnis would be angry that their position of privilege was gone and naturally the Shia wanted revenge. The Coalition was working towards representative government. Yes, big mistakes were made and I'm sure the military would have done a lot better job of setting Iraq on its feet as it did with Japan and Germany. Especially if someone like Petraeus had been in charge from the beginning. We have to make a distinction between the head Sunni's in Hussein's regime and all Sunni's. Apparently the US kicked all Sunni's out of government, even Sunni schoolteachers and ordinary government employees. Sure, it made sense to lock out the top Sunni guys within Hussein's command structure, but the approach taken, which some of the US military was against, created an entire block of the population that turned against the US.
|
|