[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by primitive:
Sorry Geo, but I find it hard to read yours (and others) Posts any other way.
The paranoia must be spreading

I can't speak for every post here. There have been some that seemed to say that every person that opposes the war supports Sadam. There have been a few that pretty clearly did support Sadam. But I try hard not to lump people together. Just because you disagree with me on one thing doesn't mean you disagree with me about everything. I'd like to know how you got that from anything I said, paranoia or not.

Geoschmo

[Krsqk]

The Al Queada was mortal enemies of the secular Bath party. I doubt Saddam would have given any advanced weapons to Bin Laden as they just as well could end up beeing used on Iraq. The main political backer of Al Queda was Afghanistan (logically), with much of the funding coming from "friendly" nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

It stands to reason that nations with more fundamentalist Muslims would have more in common with Al Qaeda than with a secular leader such as Hussein. What you apparently fail to understand is the Arabic (and most Eastern cultures) view of enmity.
You apparently see it as:
Terrorists hate -> U.S. and U.K. and Saddam and Israel and ... all the same.

Arabs see it as a continuum:
Terrorists hate -> U.S. then Israel then U.K. then Saddam then ...
They will support anyone lower on the list against anyone higher on the list. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"; and, "My brother against my cousin, but my cousin against a stranger"--those sum up the Arabic philosophy of enmity.

Of course the terrorists hate Saddam, but they hate the U.S. more. Saddam is an Arab, at least; he pays well; they get plenty of women; and best of all, there's a chance to give the U.S. a black eye. Any fundamentalist Muslim is duty-bound to decry the U.S.'s actions. Of course, if the U.S. comes out victorious, that just means one more enemy is off the slate. The situation isn't to their liking, but at least they didn't lose everything.

[ April 11, 2003, 01:14: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by primitive:
Sorry Geo, but I find it hard to read yours (and others) Posts any other way.
The paranoia must be spreading

I can't speak for every post here. There have been some that seemed to say that every person that opposes the war supports Sadam. There have been a few that pretty clearly did support Sadam. But I try hard not to lump people together. Just because you disagree with me on one thing doesn't mean you disagree with me about everything. I'd like to know how you got that from anything I said, paranoia or not.

Geoschmo

---

Creating false statements to respond to out of what other people actually said is a common tactic employed out of ignorance. Most people that do it do it accidentally and unwittingly.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by primitive:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thermodyne:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
And MB... also remember that Iraq had no ties with the terrorists who did the sept. 11 attacks.

Two have been traced back to forged records that were tampered with during the occupation of Kuwait.

Also lets face reality here. No terrorist organization the size and complexity of Bin Laudins can function with out the services of a notional diplomatic organization, and the also need the protection and cover of national security organizations. As the remains of Iraq are examined, this will come to light.

---

Thermo:

Think we covered this before,
There are many reasons a Baluchi would like a Kuwaiti passport. This is circumstantial evidence
at most.

And reality ?
The Al Queada was mortal enemies of the secular Bath party. I doubt Saddam would have given any advanced weapons to Bin Laden as they just as well could end up beeing used on Iraq. The main political backer of Al Queda was Afghanistan (logically), with much of the funding coming from "friendly" nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

I think even GWB has given up on pinning 9-11 on Saddam.

---

Then we will agree to disagree for now. You should look back at what got Bin Laudin pissed
off to begin with. Then remember that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” dates from an
older Arabic slogan “The slayer of those who torment me, will be my brothers in the greatness
of god.” The Arab world has always needed to set aside it’s internal differences to repel
invaders. It has become part of their culture. And Saddam was the kind of guy who could deal
with the devil himself. I would think that for a free hand in Iraq, Saddam would have offered
support and aid.

[primitive]

Krsqk
Your arguments is good, but:
While Saddam could have had a deal with Bin Laden, he could never have trusted the Al Queda. Bin Laden kept Iraq on the list of enemies (he had to out of religious reasons), and Saddam could never have been sure that some local or splinter group would not take matters in their own hand. That said, there are many safe ways Saddam could have supported Bin Laden, SAM missiles for one (not beeing able to fly much himself).

But I think the main reason we haven't seen any proof of a Saddam - Bin Laden connection is that there wasn't any. There just wasn't any need for one. Saddam could find all the agents/terrorist he needed safer and cheaper elsewhere, and Bin Laden had no problem getting the money and weapons he needed to achieve his goals.

Geo
I dunno, Your Posts is by far the worst, but I feel there is a "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiority, that reduces everybody who disagree to low level scum. You have a great and special standing in the community, and your words carries much more weight than the average guys words would do.

Maybe the fault is all mine, I get a short fuse around this war thread. Anyway, I do/did not mean to offend you.

Fyron
You really crack me up sometimes.

Thermo
Agreed

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by primitive:
but I feel there is a "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiority

I don't have the same feeling about the Geo's Posts.
But really disagree that "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiority
In my view, this only imply Military/Technological/Political superiority, not moral.

[rextorres]

Enemy of my enemy - give me a break. Talk about stereotyping. BTW: If anything we're the ones guilty of that. Did you guys forget that all the invaders were from anglo/english speaking countries?

Part of the problem is that for the Last six month there has been this moving target to justify the war.

Instead of coming up with dubious arguments why don't you pro war guys come out and say what your thinking - that it's either them or us - like the cold war. At least you wouldn't sound disingenuous.

[Krsqk]

I wouldn't disagree that both Saddam and his supporters were angling for good positions from which to stab each other in the back if necessary. I wouldn't necessarily link Saddam and bin Laden, by the way; but I would link Saddam and terrorism in general. There is also a definite trans-national link between Saddam and fundamentalist Islam--that's why we're encountering these fighters from other countries. There are several Groups in whose best interests it was to defeat the US and their coalition; they contributed whatever they could/would to achieve that goal.

Rex, that may be stereotyping; but stereotypes of Middle-Eastern Arab culture tend to hit a lot nearer the mark than stereotypes of other cultures, due mostly to the homogenizing effect of Islam. In fact, there are a lot more similarities among Eastern cultures as a whole than Westerners readily accept. We are conditioned to pick out differences in ourselves and others, and tend to project our blended culture onto others. In reality, differences in Middle-Eastern Arabs exist more in spite of their culture than as a part of it.

Taking the discussion in another direction--stereotypes are not evil. They are even helpful. Stereotypes exist precisely because there are factors which are generally shared by a large segment of a given population. Stereotypes deal with large Groups of people, and are useful in those situations. The statement "Iraqis are cheering the fall of Saddam's dictatorship" is not made false because some Iraqis support him, any more than the stereotype "The accent of Americans living in the midwestern regions of the US is easily understood" is false because some living in the Midwest may have an Irish brogue or a Southern drawl. Of course there are exceptions to generalizations, but that doesn't make the generalizations any less true.

I think many people have mixed up prejudice and stereotype. Prejudice applies a stereotype to every individual in that group, without accepting the possibility for the existence of exceptions. For example, "Southerners are stupid hicks" would be prejudicial, while "Education in the southeastern United States is lower than in the Midwest" is stereotype. No one is saying that all Arabs are US-hating, Saddam-loving, dictatorship-embracing scumbags--any more than anyone is saying that everyone who supports this war is a disingenuous, deceitful, greedy warmonger who wants a US empire in the Middle East. Most people who use statements involving "Everyone" or "All you" can be written off pretty quickly as either exaggerating or prejudiced.

[ April 11, 2003, 04:04: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Instead of coming up with dubious arguments why don't you pro war guys come out and say what your thinking - that it's either them or us - like the cold war. At least you wouldn't sound disingenuous.

Excuse me, what have I been saying for the Last four months? I consider the threat posed by Iraq to be real, and serious enough to warrant action. That's why I supported the decision to go to war once it was clear that the diplomatic efforts were not going to succeed. If you want to be frank and say it was "them or us" I don't have a problem with that. I don't see a big difference in the two statements. How have I been disengenuous about it? Given the choice, I choose us.

Does that mean I think the US get's to do whatever the hell it wants anywhere in the world just because we can and who cares if anyone disagrees? No, I don't. I don't agree with Pax Americana or whatever it's being called. But I believe Iraq presented a credible threat and needed to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

Geoschmo

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by primitive:
Geo
I dunno, Your Posts is by far the worst, but I feel there is a "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiority, that reduces everybody who disagree to low level scum. You have a great and special standing in the community, and your words carries much more weight than the average guys words would do.

Please Primitve, with all do respect, stop misrepresenting my comments in this public forum. Disagree with what I have said by all means, my but don't make stuff up and say I said it.

I do consider my reputation in this forum, but have never claimed to be morally superior to anyone. I respect the opinions of everyone here, even those I disagree with vehemantly. And for me what happens in this thread stays in this thread. These conversations have no bearing on how I treat anyone outside this thread. You can ask Rex about that if you doubt me.

If you care to take this conversation into private email and give me some examples of what I have suposedly said along these lines I would appreciate it. If I have been careless with my words and given you this impression somehow in my comments I would like to know it. But how you can say my Posts are the worst examples of this behavior I honestly have no idea.

Geoschmo

[ April 11, 2003, 04:16: Message edited by: geoschmo ]