Fact-Checking the President's Speech on Iraq
-
fat_boy wrote:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will never live together. It is an impossibility.
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work. Democracy is as much a social system as a political one, and a society that is not ready for democracy will never be able to make a go of it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work.
But that begs some questions doesn't it? Suppose the rest of us morons came to possess your amazing political acumen. What then? Does the world go spinning happily off into the future with an ever shrinking island of western democracies floating on an ocean of peoples who just cannot grasp our way of life? Do we integrate them by migration into our society? Do we build walls between us and them? Do we obliterate them? Do we allow them to overwhelm us by sheer numbers? It would seem to me that it isn't an issue of who understands what about who, its an issue of what do we wish the ultimate status quo to be. For my part, when push comes to shove, which it alwas does, I want my way of life to be the last one standing, regardless of what has to happen for that to occur. Aside from that, I really don't give a good goddamn what the Iraqi people are, or are not, capable of.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work.
But that begs some questions doesn't it? Suppose the rest of us morons came to possess your amazing political acumen. What then? Does the world go spinning happily off into the future with an ever shrinking island of western democracies floating on an ocean of peoples who just cannot grasp our way of life? Do we integrate them by migration into our society? Do we build walls between us and them? Do we obliterate them? Do we allow them to overwhelm us by sheer numbers? It would seem to me that it isn't an issue of who understands what about who, its an issue of what do we wish the ultimate status quo to be. For my part, when push comes to shove, which it alwas does, I want my way of life to be the last one standing, regardless of what has to happen for that to occur. Aside from that, I really don't give a good goddamn what the Iraqi people are, or are not, capable of.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Does the world go spinning happily off into the future with an ever shrinking island of western democracies floating on an ocean of peoples who just cannot grasp our way of life?
Why do you expect that to happen? If you go back less than 20 years, you see the opposite happening in Eastern Europe.
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Does the world go spinning happily off into the future with an ever shrinking island of western democracies floating on an ocean of peoples who just cannot grasp our way of life?
Why do you expect that to happen? If you go back less than 20 years, you see the opposite happening in Eastern Europe.
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
I don't necessarily expect it to happen, but if one posits that we are to accept that not all cultures are amenable to our political beliefs, what do we do? Nothing stays the same, things that do not grow generally die. Change is a constant. So, the scenario would seem to me to be a distinct possibility given modern attitudes in the west concerning the acceptance of multiculturalism. If we are culturally bound to be more accepting towards them than they to us, and if we are not as demographically robust as they, then certainly, over time, baring no overt effort on our part to direct change in a way conducive to our beliefs, they win
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
At the risk of repeating myself.... http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=2231300&forumid=2605#xx2231300xx
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
At the risk of repeating myself....
Wrong then, wrong again..
-
fat_boy wrote:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will never live together. It is an impossibility.
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work. Democracy is as much a social system as a political one, and a society that is not ready for democracy will never be able to make a go of it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
As fat boy posted:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk.
Whereas the US approach seems to be "jam everyone into the same room and force them to work together." Anywho, my only real point was to insult American planners for not thinking of this ahead of time.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work.
But that begs some questions doesn't it? Suppose the rest of us morons came to possess your amazing political acumen. What then? Does the world go spinning happily off into the future with an ever shrinking island of western democracies floating on an ocean of peoples who just cannot grasp our way of life? Do we integrate them by migration into our society? Do we build walls between us and them? Do we obliterate them? Do we allow them to overwhelm us by sheer numbers? It would seem to me that it isn't an issue of who understands what about who, its an issue of what do we wish the ultimate status quo to be. For my part, when push comes to shove, which it alwas does, I want my way of life to be the last one standing, regardless of what has to happen for that to occur. Aside from that, I really don't give a good goddamn what the Iraqi people are, or are not, capable of.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Well, for sure PAtrick is being superior. Britain is a guilty as hell of making mistakes in Iraq, and is in no position to preach. Look at Norther Ireland, Britain IS in no position to preach to anyone about how to manage an 'empire'. However Stan you are exagerating a little. Your culture isnot under threat. Dont wory about it, Westyer culture is the most pervasive the world has ever seen (excepting perhaps the Roman culture, although it could be argued present day western culture is an extension of Roman culture). Its not about to die antytime soon Stan, rest asssured.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Well, for sure PAtrick is being superior. Britain is a guilty as hell of making mistakes in Iraq, and is in no position to preach. Look at Norther Ireland, Britain IS in no position to preach to anyone about how to manage an 'empire'. However Stan you are exagerating a little. Your culture isnot under threat. Dont wory about it, Westyer culture is the most pervasive the world has ever seen (excepting perhaps the Roman culture, although it could be argued present day western culture is an extension of Roman culture). Its not about to die antytime soon Stan, rest asssured.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
I would probably share your optimisim if it were not for the modern western cultural mandate to be 'inclusive' of other cultures and peoples. At some point a culture must have some degree of xenophobia to survive. I mean, there has to be some 'line in the sand' that a people collectively refuse to cross. As far as I can tell the only 'line in the sand' that we are allowed to draw is that we can never draw a line in the sand. It is our only social imperative. All the onus for cultural change seems to be on us and no one else.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
I would probably share your optimisim if it were not for the modern western cultural mandate to be 'inclusive' of other cultures and peoples. At some point a culture must have some degree of xenophobia to survive. I mean, there has to be some 'line in the sand' that a people collectively refuse to cross. As far as I can tell the only 'line in the sand' that we are allowed to draw is that we can never draw a line in the sand. It is our only social imperative. All the onus for cultural change seems to be on us and no one else.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Dont forget the only constant is change. US culture wouldnt be what it is without change. Puritans fleeing Europe, NewYork based on Dutch standards of freedom and tolerence. Everything changes, evolves, migrates. Western culture will do too.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Dont forget the only constant is change. US culture wouldnt be what it is without change. Puritans fleeing Europe, NewYork based on Dutch standards of freedom and tolerence. Everything changes, evolves, migrates. Western culture will do too.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
Everything changes, evolves, migrates. Western culture will do too.
Which was precisely my original fucking point. Have I called you a dick head lately?
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Everything changes, evolves, migrates. Western culture will do too.
Which was precisely my original fucking point. Have I called you a dick head lately?
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Youre original post was, as usual, Islam paranoia. My reply was that your current culture is a result of change. If it hadnt, you would be in Limerick drinking Guninness and moaning about Prodies.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Youre original post was, as usual, Islam paranoia. My reply was that your current culture is a result of change. If it hadnt, you would be in Limerick drinking Guninness and moaning about Prodies.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
No, my original point was that we posit that other cultures are hopelessly immutable, but that we promote ourselves as being infinitely mutable. If that is true, than clearly the end result is not difficult to predict. I'm not paranoid about Islam, I'm paranoid about you.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You're right, it was not presented as factual, it was presented as an address by the President of the United States.
And was countered not with fact...But with heavily biased opinions...Which you apparently confuse with "facts". That certainly explains a lot.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
What specific problems do you have with the commentary?
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
At the risk of repeating myself....
Wrong then, wrong again..
I've noticed you really like arguing. Even when there's no particular reason to. How droll.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
No, my original point was that we posit that other cultures are hopelessly immutable, but that we promote ourselves as being infinitely mutable. If that is true, than clearly the end result is not difficult to predict. I'm not paranoid about Islam, I'm paranoid about you.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, my original point was that we posit that other cultures are hopelessly immutable,
I didn't say that, did I? There were two key words that I KNEW you would miss in my original point: "for now". In fact I almost thought about bolding those two words. And true to form, you missed them. It's so predictable.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
What specific problems do you have with the commentary?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
What specific problems do you have with the commentary?
My problem lies more in your interpretation of opinion as fact. But their analysis seems flawed as well. For example, their criticism of Bush's use of the word "those" in the first paragraph is...well...overreaching criticism. Firstly, dedicating a paragraph to his use of the word "those" is silly and indicates an overzealous yearning to attack rather than analyze. Secondly, the content of their criticism is flawed. "Those" can obviously refer to Al Qaeda in Iraq and, though they tangentially admit that fact, the thrust of their criticism is that America is not directly threatened by Sunni-Shiite death squads. But why is that even relevant when there is (per their own quiet admission) Al Qaeda in Iraq? Their intent with that paragraph is to imply that Bush is being disengenuous about his statement that the same people threatening Iraq is threatening America and do so by implying that Bush is referring to Shiite-Sunni rivalries (rather than Al Qaeda). It's a completely fallacious strawman attempt.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Which part of the article do you take issue with? Or would you rather play "kill the messenger" like you usually do?
Besides the fact that it's a biased attack on the president paid for with my tax dollars...Nothing. They're entitled to their opinions (though I shouldn't have to pay for them). What I take issue with is your confusion between facts and opinions. But I can't blame you as you ripped this directly off of Digg (including the title).
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
But I can't blame you as you ripped this directly off of Digg (including the title).
You apparently don't disagree with it, either.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, my original point was that we posit that other cultures are hopelessly immutable,
I didn't say that, did I? There were two key words that I KNEW you would miss in my original point: "for now". In fact I almost thought about bolding those two words. And true to form, you missed them. It's so predictable.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Well, since you're so good at predicting things and all, and such a brilliant student of international social trends, when do you predict that they will become mutable?
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
But I can't blame you as you ripped this directly off of Digg (including the title).
You apparently don't disagree with it, either.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You apparently don't disagree with it, either.
I addressed disagreement above, which you ignored. There is simply too much BS in their analysis to address individually.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Well, since you're so good at predicting things and all, and such a brilliant student of international social trends, when do you predict that they will become mutable?
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
since you're so good at predicting things and all, and such a brilliant student of international social trends
[snicker] You're so easy to provoke.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee