|
Who What Now posted:I'm posting on my phone and it's a really slow day at the cubicle farm Computer? Seriously?? Joke's on you: I'm actually at work, in a cubicle, surrounded by friends and supporters and hammering away at my smartphone.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
Peta posted:It was illegal to own a satellite dish in Iraq under Hussein so I'm pretty sure we left it off better than it was before actually Peta posted:Number of people in this thread who know what it's like to live a single day under a fascist dictator: 0 (zero) You're right I don't but my Iraqi friends who were there when the war started do, want to take a guess at how many of them or the people in Iraq they know supported the war?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
I have a job that doesn't give a poo poo what I do on my computer and I have local admin on it so it all works out for me. Let's be honest, here. Some of the best theocracies out there are only bad if you just happen to be born the wrong gender or don't ascribe to the right belief system or have the wrong sexual urges or whatever. These are both things that can be easily corrected with modern technology or some good old fashioned beating. If you think about it from the dominant ideology's point of view (whatever that may be, we can hash that out later) it's really not that bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:You're right I don't but my Iraqi friends who were there when the war started do, want to take a guess at how many of them or the people in Iraq they know supported the war? How can I dodge the silver bullet of your anecdotal evidence
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
It's actually really really important to be able to parse the individual aspects of a failure. And I think people are doing a horrible job of that here. So independent of the horribleness of our decision to invade Iraq in the particular context we did it, you need to have an oppinion on if and when aggression and war are justified on humanitarian grounds. I don't think anyone here actually thinks the answer to this is never. It's also clear that Saddam was pretty bad. So it's not unreasonable to consider whether his removal might theoretically be morally justified. Or to look at that aspect of the war alone as justified. And remember, aggression and war are not just the tools of the right. Not close. For disclosures sake I also think the war in Iraq was the largest blunder of the United States since Vietnam (larger in some ways) and completely and disturbingly inexcusable. President Bush needs to go down as one of the worst presidents in history as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's also clear that Saddam was pretty bad. So it's not unreasonable to consider whether his removal might theoretically be morally justified. Or to look at that aspect of the war alone as justified. Oh yeah sure, Saddam was a horrible monster and it's utterly uncontroversial that in isolation the world is better off with him dead than alive. The notion that leftists support Saddam and unconditionally wish he were in power is just a pathetic lie that neocons tell to avoid discussing the issues. But trying to justify the war that actually happened on humanitarian grounds is futile. Saddam's atrocities were completely irrelevant to the war, except insofar as those prosecuting the war found them useful propaganda fodder to dupe the rubes into supporting conquest and empire in the hopes of reëstablishing Iraq as an American puppet to provide us with oil and bodies to throw against Iran. The exact people who claim that the Iraq War war was justified regardless of consequences because we are fighting Saddam and Saddam is a Bad Guy were in the 1980's proclaiming that funding Saddam's atrocities was justified regardless of consequences because we are fighting the mullahs and the mullahs are Bad Guys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
I remember people complaining here about basing a government system on Iran but their stance on trans rights is much more progressive than most Western countries. Maybe there can be a compromise?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Forced gender reassignment for gay men is progressive?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Forced gender reassignment for gay men is progressive? Are you implying transwomen are gay men forced into transitioning?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Reminder: you are dealing with people who literally wouldn't admit that the primary purpose of an axe is to chop things. Don't expect too much. #NotAllAxes
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Are you implying transwomen are gay men forced into transitioning? No, I'm stating that men who have sex with men are sentenced to death in Iran and transitioning is a way to escape that fate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
When I think progressive on trans issues, I imagine a state that punishes you for moral crimes if you cross-dress without a government-supplied certification of your transsexual status. And if you do apply to be recognized as a trans heterosexual, heaven help you if the state's doctors decide you're really a cis-homosexual trying to game the system!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Peta posted:How can I dodge the silver bullet of your anecdotal evidence You're the one who brought up the stupid argument about not knowing what it's like to live under a dictator, my anecdotes sure know a lot more about that than you do. If only they had actually polled Iraqis on this issue, I'm sure when proper statistical methods are used instead of anecdotes you'll find they wanted the war right? quote:A March 7, 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis found that 78% of the population opposed the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, that 69% believed the presence of U.S. forces was making things worse, and that 51% of the population considered attacks on coalition forces acceptable, up from 17% in 2004 and 35% in 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Cool poll results, too bad they have absolutely nothing to do with the concept that living under Saddam Hussein's rule was hell for a huge number of people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Peta posted:Cool poll results, too bad they have absolutely nothing to do with the concept that living under Saddam Hussein's rule was hell for a huge number of people. "I know what it's like to live under Saddam's rule better than actual people that lived under Saddam's rule." -A white American in 2014 Who What Now fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
You do know that the Iraq War is still going on, right? That ISIS is marching its way down the country slaughtering Shias and beheading women and hundreds of thousands more are now homeless as a direct result of the idiot assumptions by neoconservatives like you that American bombs will explode into showers of democracy flowers and sectarian strife would end as our  American boys fired rainbows and sunshine from their rifles, right?
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
I'm obsessed with Paul Tillich, my sentence structure could have been clearer. But I was pretty trashed. Anyway Tillich is probably the only theologian to call Nietzsche a prophet, at least he's the only one I've ever seen do it explicitly. Tillich tried to reconcile Christianity, Stoicism, and some of what Nietzsche had to say in this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Courage-Be-Paul-Tillich/dp/0300084714 But many of Tillich's students eventually do go onto be be the "Death of God" theology people. But I'm not death of God theology person (even though I'll talk about it). But there is the idea of "religion against religion", or one could talk about Jesus as being anti-religion, or one could talk about God dying on the cross and what that means for organized religion. Anyway one can do all those things without being part of Death of God Theology. Don't get me wrong I think God died on the cross. But what about God behind the cross (that whole trinity thing)? But what about the resurrection? Christians talk about the death of God all the time: "He suffered" or "He was crucified for us". Anywho, back to the point, what it means when like someone like David Brat says "Christianity should learn from Nietzsche" combined with that he has a masters of divinity from Princeton, well, together those things imply strongly that he has probably read Tillich. Which worries me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:But I was pretty trashed. Don't drunk post. Take it from me,
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You do know that the Iraq War is still going on, right? That ISIS is marching its way down the country slaughtering Shias and beheading women and hundreds of thousands more are now homeless as a direct result of the idiot assumptions by neoconservatives like you that American bombs will explode into showers of democracy flowers and sectarian strife would end as our Agreed, it is the fault of the United States that thuggish fanatics are holding hands in Iraq and Syria and loving up innocent lives
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Assigning fault is complicated and messy, which is probably why war apologists always start talking about it. The actual issue is that the US bombing people has failed to accomplish any of its stated or implicit goals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
It's pretty simple, actually. When you do something wrong, you are responsible for doing something wrong. The US isn't to blame for ISIS's atrocities. ISIS is. Don't confuse one entity's murderous enterprise with another entity's failure to preempt it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:The actual issue is that the US bombing people has failed to accomplish any of its stated or implicit goals. Ah but what if all the predictably horrible consequences never happened? You see, you vulgar leftist, in an alternate reality where the Iraq War were good, the Iraq War would be good. Therefore the Iraq War is good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Peta posted:It's pretty simple, actually. When you do something wrong, you are responsible for doing something wrong. The US isn't to blame for ISIS's atrocities. ISIS is. Don't confuse one entity's murderous enterprise with another entity's failure to preempt it. Yes, sure. The US isn't "responsible" or "to blame" or "at fault" for what ISIS has done. This doesn't make it good that their violent actions in Iraq accomplished nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah but what if all the predictably horrible consequences never happened? You see, you vulgar leftist, in an alternate reality where the Iraq War were good, the Iraq War would be good. Therefore the Iraq War is good. Amarkov posted:Yes, sure. The US isn't "responsible" or "to blame" or "at fault" for what ISIS has done. I've never disputed this point so I don't know why you guys are still crying about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Well presumably the US does bear some responsibility for those members of ISIS who received their training from the US military.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Don't drunk post. Take it from me, I'm a pretty happy drunk fortunately. I was missing my sons first birthday because I had to travel for work, to a place where I was probably going to the facilities of an objectionable client, in some of the most depressed areas of the country, where my schedule was (is) going to be basically random (and on call) but most often between 22:00 and 05:00 daily for a solid week. Fortunately I dodged the work at the particular business run as a theonomy. (Don't ask the begged question because I won't answer it). The thread topic was a little too concrete.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Peta posted:It's pretty simple, actually. When you do something wrong, you are responsible for doing something wrong. The US isn't to blame for ISIS's atrocities. ISIS is. Don't confuse one entity's murderous enterprise with another entity's failure to preempt it. This is also wrong and stupid. You deserve blame for the predictable consequences of your actions. If you knock over the first domino you're effectively knocking down all of them. The US destabilized Iraq and left. It obviously doesn't deserve the entire blame for current events. But certainly some.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Yes, it is actually that stupid. Uh it's a comedy sketch, dude. It's not meant to be serious, yeesh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This is also wrong and stupid. You deserve blame for the predictable consequences of your actions. If you knock over the first domino you're effectively knocking down all of them. The US destabilized Iraq and left. It obviously doesn't deserve the entire blame for current events. But certainly some. To be fair, the decision to leave Iraq rather than uphold a long-term commitment to building liberal democratic government there was made by the opponents of the neocons, despite neocon arguments that it would lead to chaos. If I recall, the core opposition argument was that it would be too expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
I was under the impression that the core argument for leaving Iraq was that the sectarian violence could only be held at bay if we stayed there for-loving-ever as an occupying force, so we might as well just cut our losses and go back. Particularly since our presence would only just make our troops a constant target while also acting as a sign that Iraqi sovereignty was a sham.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:To be fair, the decision to leave Iraq rather than uphold a long-term commitment to building liberal democratic government there was made by the opponents of the neocons, despite neocon arguments that it would lead to chaos. If I recall, the core opposition argument was that it would be too expensive. If you recall the choice to leave Iraq was also that of the Iraqi government, which would not sign a status of forces agreement. Though I suppose the neo-con response is that we could always have toppled another government if need be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When I think progressive on trans issues, I imagine a state that punishes you for moral crimes if you cross-dress without a government-supplied certification of your transsexual status. To my understanding the state is really loving adamant that homosexuals literally don't exist, so I doubt that comes up often. Iran on transgendered folks is one of the best modern examples of "nice idea taken to horrible conclusion".
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:I was under the impression that the core argument for leaving Iraq was that the sectarian violence could only be held at bay if we stayed there for-loving-ever as an occupying force, so we might as well just cut our losses and go back. Particularly since our presence would only just make our troops a constant target while also acting as a sign that Iraqi sovereignty was a sham. Barlow posted:If you recall the choice to leave Iraq was also that of the Iraqi government, which would not sign a status of forces agreement. Though I suppose the neo-con response is that we could always have toppled another government if need be. Is the logical conclusion then that the Iraqi people are simply incapable of liberal democracy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Is the logical conclusion then that the Iraqi people are simply incapable of liberal democracy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:To be fair, the decision to leave Iraq rather than uphold a long-term commitment to building liberal democratic government there was made by the opponents of the neocons, despite neocon arguments that it would lead to chaos. If I recall, the core opposition argument was that it would be too expensive. The Iraqi government would not let us stay under the conditions neocons (and neoliberals) would have accepted: immunity of US troops from local law. So unless you are arguing that we should have ousted Maliki and installed our own yes-man, this "we were about to win until the hippies stabbed us in the back" doesn't hold water. Kyrie eleison posted:Is the logical conclusion then that the Iraqi people are simply incapable of liberal democracy? No. It's that bombing them doesn't work. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
Contrary to what we're brought up to believe, liberal democracy is not a default state, nor is it a universal ideal all people seek. Destroying the existing government won't always bring a liberal democracy into existence, even if you attempt to install one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Contrary to what we're brought up to believe, liberal democracy is not a default state, nor is it a universal ideal all people seek. Destroying the existing government won't always bring a liberal democracy into existence, even if you attempt to install one. "What are you talking about, those filthy loving browns don't know what's good for themselves. They just need to be shown how great democracy, cheap beer, and giant fake titties are, then they'll see. Or by Lord Jesus we'll make them see. Such is the white man's burden."
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
Over 5,500 Iraqi civilians have been killed in 2014. Even if the figure doubles to 11,000 by the end of the year that's a whole lot better than the 30,000 killed per year by Saddam et al. Math is the enemy of fake liberals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
Peta posted:Over 5,500 Iraqi civilians have been killed in 2014. Even if the figure doubles to 11,000 by the end of the year that's a whole lot better than the 30,000 killed per year by Saddam et al. Math is the enemy of fake liberals. SedanChair posted:Wait, when we talk about deaths under Saddam are we including
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 13:58
|
|