Wrong. I am relaying information from people that are there. The woman talking to Perle was discussing her personal experience.
The keyword is relaying, which will inherently subject the context to modification/filtering via your own opinions, mindsets, and biases. One should not be too confident with such "interpretations", as you seem to equate "life with Saddam as ruler" as "peaceful" for some, and justified at that, at the expense of "less peace" for others also living under Saddam.
...and in further irony, you're telling me not to project my opinions on Iraqi's w/o having spoken to them personally, yet you will project your own opinions on US forces as "nervous, civilian killing trigger-happy 19 year-olds"? Did you actually speak to a few of them who were in-country and conclude that they were obsessed with raid, plunder, and pillaging while "vacationing in the ME"?
...and back on topic, here's an editorial from yesterday's Guardian explaining precisely why the privatision of Iraq's resources is morally wrong and encomically stupid.
Let's talk about this for a bit rather than arguing over who said what.
What the average Iraqi wants should not be the litmus test. No one wants a dentist prying and scraping around inside their mouth, either. Does that mean getting a checkup (or a root canal) isn't warranted? I think these Iraqi people forget what it was like with Saddam at the reigns a bit too easily.
well, lets see, Saddam was on the CIA payroll and (basically) placed into power. With the full co-op with the US (note meetings with Bush Senior and Ruymsfeld-known facts). So now, after having imposed Saddam on the Iraqis, "we" decide that the Iraqis should be "free" from saddam and bite the bitter pill of colonialism. I see. I wonder how happy and thankful we would be if Cuba "helped" us get rid of bush.
The U.S. is in a position to do it, but they're selling the jobs to foreign companies instead. We're stealing the jobs away from Iraq even though they have the manpower to do it themselves. If the U.S. isn't willing to organize the local engineers then we should move out of the way and let the U.N. in conjunction with Iraqis do it.
How would the US organize local engineers without the corporations? Should Private Ryan in the Humvee on the corner make that decision?
Quote:
You said this type of action should be punished. What type of punishment do you suggest?
What type of action is going on that I deemed worthy of punishment?
Quote:
Conversely, if you believe he U.S. isn't extorting money from Iraq as the thread asserts, show us some proof as to why Hassan is wrong. Why is the information in the link incorrect?
What facts from Hassan's article are in dispute with what I have said?
An Iraqi issued the reforms. Sure, he is dismissed as a puppet, as would any Iraqi official who did something you don't like or find something wrong with. If you agree, you will say "That is what Iraq wants". If you disagree, you will say "Oh he is just a US puppet".
And past that, oil was not included in the privatization. That should tell you something. Oil is #1 by far and it is still "in the hands of the people", whatever that means.
Quote:
Is something like this good enough? The Iraqi Governing Council wants the U.S. out.
While you overgeneralize, that's a good link. Of course that guy is a prick, his name is L. Paul Bremer III. If your first name is used as an initial and you're past "jr." in the chronology you are automatically a prick. Anyone treating their stay in Iraq like a luxury vacation should be sent home.
--
Harald:
I saw on the TeeVee that "they" blew up the UN headquarters... twice!
While you overgeneralize, that's a good link. Of course that guy is a prick, his name is L. Paul Bremer III. If your first name is used as an initial and you're past "jr." in the chronology you are automatically a prick. Anyone treating their stay in Iraq like a luxury vacation should be sent home.
This was funny.
The old state run businesses will have people, old managers, in place that will know who to use. Paperwork and records left behind will show who has worked on what. Post job availability and people fit for the job will come running for work. I think the people are in place to get things rolling.
I saw on the TeeVee that "they" blew up the UN headquarters... twice!
Hooray for the teevee!
Oh lord.
Here's another link, one of a thousand I could point to. Not on the TV this time.
I could link to a thousand, but it wouldn't matter; the mere fact of its existence marks it out as liberal propogadanda, anti-US in nature. There is no story I could link to that wouldn't be it seems.
It's all going BRILLIANTLY in Iraq. They're all free now, they love us, and they're waiting patiently for us to fix the leccy and buy all their industries. There'll be an emotional handover come elections day with Bush and a Chalaboid shaking hands while the kids wave Bremer all the way to the airport. When our troops leave Iraqi women will be broken-hearted wretches.
The old state run businesses will have people, old managers, in place that will know who to use. Paperwork and records left behind will show who has worked on what. Post job availability and people fit for the job will come running for work. I think the people are in place to get things rolling.
Who organizes them, comes up with the standard and pays them? Who supplies them with raw materials to work with? The tools to make raw materials into the desired product?
--
Harald:
Quote:
I could link to a thousand, but it wouldn't matter; the mere fact of its existence marks it out as liberal propogadanda, anti-US in nature. There is no story I could link to that wouldn't be it seems.
There are those in Iraq who aren't happy, lots. There are those who aren't happy but don't hate the US or want the US out, lots.
It's all going BRILLIANTLY in Iraq. They're all free now, they love us, and they're waiting patiently for us to fix the leccy and buy all their industries. There'll be an emotional handover come elections day with Bush and a Chalaboid shaking hands while the kids wave Bremer all the way to the airport. When our troops leave Iraqi women will be broken-hearted wretches.
One of the key things about satire that makes it clever and humorous is there actually being a viewpoint to mock instead of inventing one to mock.
I'd like to see someone saying everything is great in Iraq.
We invade Iraq in order to . . . whatever . . . we do it because . . the reasons don't matter apparently . . . let's say "operation Iraqi Freedom" that sounds like a reason . . .or rather since teh reasons we used were shown as pumped up and admittedly unecessarily inflated then . . . um . . . 'Freedom" will always be a good one
we do so against the wishes of the only international organization in place for judging the 'universal legitimacy' of international action
We then find that we were unprepared for all outcomes to our actions specifically those which ensued
We did not have the economic resources prepared in advance
we free the iraqi people and set up a 'government' that represents the people
Yet we sell the people's resources to International Companies before the 'people' can say anything? Is that freedom?
Is this not carpetbagging?!?!
Here is another perplexation:
we need the UN now in order to give some legitimacy
is that because it is so patently illigitimate?
We need them to come in yet we must wait to tranfer power, or we refuse to entirely
Is that wait in order to ensure that the companies with most favored buddy-buddy status get the booty they choose?
wait till we're done plundering first then the legitimacy begins
And when does the domino-O-Freedom start?
Groverat, all this time I thought you left because your position was so obviously untenable that you had to leave?!?!
huhn?
has it ever occured to you that it is possible to have been against the embargoes as well as against the idiotic fashion this war was pursued: with crimes against the American people (lies) and allienation in geopolitical terms who's reprecussion will resonate for years?
PS: please don't do your clever little line by line reading . . .that seems so pursuasive of a tactic but always seems to miss the point . . .
Oh. I get it. You guys believe in "tough love" for the Iraqi people. You believe you know what's good for them better than they do, and that they need to be held down to take their medicine. How arrogant and presumtuous of you. Just like "True Americans".
It may be arrogant. It may be presumptuous. It may also be the right thing to do. If you are content to let anyone and anybody do whatever they please over there because it is what they want, it's about equal chance for things to go really south as well as for things to improve. It's like expecting somebody who has been in an abusive, dysfunctional relationship for 20 years to suddenly know how to live functionally once the abusive partner has been eliminated from their life. Yeah, maybe they might have an inkling of what to do...and monkeys might fly out my butt, too. More than likely they'll be better off learning by example for a while. There's no shame in that, but it does take some humility, patience, and trust.
It's like expecting somebody who has been in an abusive, dysfunctional relationship for 20 years to suddenly know how to live functionally once the abusive partner has been eliminated from their life.
See, this is what the problem is. In order to convince yourself that you understand it you compare it to something completely different in an effort to simplify the situation.
It's not 'like expecting somebody who has been...'
It's 'like' the current situation in Iraq, and nothing else. Until you can talk about the situation without oversimplifying it by fabricating a make-believe surrogate discussion piece, you can't talk about it realistically.
Furthermore, the people that promote the view you are putting forth (as such, this includes you) are the same people that either a) straight-up flat-out lied about Iraq WMD or b) are so totally incompetent that they had no clue about the obvious state of Iraq's WMD programs. Those people are the last people that are in a position to make a valid assessment of Iraq and/or propose what to do next.
Classic giant, I must say. You don't like opposing views, so your response is invariably, "You are incompetent to speak on this topic, therefore only my view should be taken as the gospel..."
Suit yourself. I'll say what I feel, as will others, as well. You can keep ranting on about what you heard from your friend who has heard from their families in Iraq.
Only if that Iraqi minister guy is not actually Iraqi.
Quote:
we need the UN now in order to give some legitimacy is that because it is so patently illigitimate?
I agree, pure silliness.
Right now Iraq needs the UN like a fish needs a bicycle.
Quote:
Is that wait in order to ensure that the companies with most favored buddy-buddy status get the booty they choose?
You are obviously referencing the US's policy, so I will ask you this question... do you think the UN operates differently?
Quote:
Groverat, all this time I thought you left because your position was so obviously untenable that you had to leave?!?!
No, I left because the task of moderating this horrible forum left such a bad taste in my mouth I had to flee for my own sanity. I am rested and I have returned.
You do not know pain until you moderate AppleOutsider.
Quote:
has it ever occured to you that it is possible to have been against the embargoes as well as against the idiotic fashion this war was pursued: with crimes against the American people (lies) and allienation in geopolitical terms who's reprecussion will resonate for years?
You can be against both, sure, but the sanctions would continue if there had been no war. You cannot avoid that reality, no matter how angry it makes you.
As far as geopolitical blah blah, Bush and Schroeder had a nice glad-handing meeting today. I am far more cynical than you, money will make this all kosher very soon (it hasn't blown over a great deal already).
Quote:
PS: please don't do your clever little line by line reading . . .that seems so pursuasive of a tactic but always seems to miss the point . . .
Sorry, but the whole "I'll read your post then respond with a ramble." leads to problems as well. I prefer actually quoting people when responding because then I don't get caught up in saying "What you really think is Y!".
Who organizes them, comes up with the standard and pays them? Who supplies them with raw materials to work with? The tools to make raw materials into the desired product?
Iraq has done it before without us and they can do it again. You can pretend like there's no civil society there, and no means of fixing themselves, but it's not true. It's not Afghanistan. You're just avoiding the main point that Iraq can be self-sufficient.
Classic giant, I must say. You don't like opposing views, so your response is invariably, "You are incompetent to speak on this topic, therefore only my view should be taken as the gospel..."
Actually no. My response was:
Quote:
See, this is what the problem is. In order to convince yourself that you understand it you compare it to something completely different in an effort to simplify the situation.
It's not 'like expecting somebody who has been...'
It's 'like' the current situation in Iraq, and nothing else. Until you can talk about the situation without oversimplifying it by fabricating a make-believe surrogate discussion piece, you can't talk about it realistically.
Furthermore, the people that promote the view you are putting forth (as such, this includes you) are the same people that either a) straight-up flat-out lied about Iraq WMD or b) are so totally incompetent that they had no clue about the obvious state of Iraq's WMD programs. Those people are the last people that are in a position to make a valid assessment of Iraq and/or propose what to do next.
Iraq has done it before without us and they can do it again. You can pretend like there's no civil society there, and no means of fixing themselves, but it's not true. It's not Afghanistan. You're just avoiding the main point that Iraq can be self-sufficient.
Hey, remember groverat going on and on before the war about how Iraqis can govern themselves?
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Wrong. I am relaying information from people that are there. The woman talking to Perle was discussing her personal experience.
The keyword is relaying, which will inherently subject the context to modification/filtering via your own opinions, mindsets, and biases. One should not be too confident with such "interpretations", as you seem to equate "life with Saddam as ruler" as "peaceful" for some, and justified at that, at the expense of "less peace" for others also living under Saddam.
...and in further irony, you're telling me not to project my opinions on Iraqi's w/o having spoken to them personally, yet you will project your own opinions on US forces as "nervous, civilian killing trigger-happy 19 year-olds"? Did you actually speak to a few of them who were in-country and conclude that they were obsessed with raid, plunder, and pillaging while "vacationing in the ME"?
Is something like this good enough? The Iraqi Governing Council wants the U.S. out.
Let's talk about this for a bit rather than arguing over who said what.
Originally posted by bunge
Randycat99,
Is something like this good enough? The Iraqi Governing Council wants the U.S. out.
He he, arguing that the US has to go because of cost-efficiency. That's pretty clever actually.
Originally posted by Randycat99
What the average Iraqi wants should not be the litmus test. No one wants a dentist prying and scraping around inside their mouth, either. Does that mean getting a checkup (or a root canal) isn't warranted? I think these Iraqi people forget what it was like with Saddam at the reigns a bit too easily.
well, lets see, Saddam was on the CIA payroll and (basically) placed into power. With the full co-op with the US (note meetings with Bush Senior and Ruymsfeld-known facts). So now, after having imposed Saddam on the Iraqis, "we" decide that the Iraqis should be "free" from saddam and bite the bitter pill of colonialism. I see. I wonder how happy and thankful we would be if Cuba "helped" us get rid of bush.
The U.S. is in a position to do it, but they're selling the jobs to foreign companies instead. We're stealing the jobs away from Iraq even though they have the manpower to do it themselves. If the U.S. isn't willing to organize the local engineers then we should move out of the way and let the U.N. in conjunction with Iraqis do it.
How would the US organize local engineers without the corporations? Should Private Ryan in the Humvee on the corner make that decision?
You said this type of action should be punished. What type of punishment do you suggest?
What type of action is going on that I deemed worthy of punishment?
Conversely, if you believe he U.S. isn't extorting money from Iraq as the thread asserts, show us some proof as to why Hassan is wrong. Why is the information in the link incorrect?
What facts from Hassan's article are in dispute with what I have said?
An Iraqi issued the reforms. Sure, he is dismissed as a puppet, as would any Iraqi official who did something you don't like or find something wrong with. If you agree, you will say "That is what Iraq wants". If you disagree, you will say "Oh he is just a US puppet".
And past that, oil was not included in the privatization. That should tell you something. Oil is #1 by far and it is still "in the hands of the people", whatever that means.
Is something like this good enough? The Iraqi Governing Council wants the U.S. out.
While you overgeneralize, that's a good link. Of course that guy is a prick, his name is L. Paul Bremer III. If your first name is used as an initial and you're past "jr." in the chronology you are automatically a prick. Anyone treating their stay in Iraq like a luxury vacation should be sent home.
--
Harald:
I saw on the TeeVee that "they" blew up the UN headquarters... twice!
Hooray for the teevee!
Originally posted by groverat
While you overgeneralize, that's a good link. Of course that guy is a prick, his name is L. Paul Bremer III. If your first name is used as an initial and you're past "jr." in the chronology you are automatically a prick. Anyone treating their stay in Iraq like a luxury vacation should be sent home.
This was funny.
The old state run businesses will have people, old managers, in place that will know who to use. Paperwork and records left behind will show who has worked on what. Post job availability and people fit for the job will come running for work. I think the people are in place to get things rolling.
Originally posted by groverat
I saw on the TeeVee that "they" blew up the UN headquarters... twice!
Hooray for the teevee!
Oh lord.
Here's another link, one of a thousand I could point to. Not on the TV this time.
I could link to a thousand, but it wouldn't matter; the mere fact of its existence marks it out as liberal propogadanda, anti-US in nature. There is no story I could link to that wouldn't be it seems.
It's all going BRILLIANTLY in Iraq. They're all free now, they love us, and they're waiting patiently for us to fix the leccy and buy all their industries. There'll be an emotional handover come elections day with Bush and a Chalaboid shaking hands while the kids wave Bremer all the way to the airport. When our troops leave Iraqi women will be broken-hearted wretches.
The old state run businesses will have people, old managers, in place that will know who to use. Paperwork and records left behind will show who has worked on what. Post job availability and people fit for the job will come running for work. I think the people are in place to get things rolling.
Who organizes them, comes up with the standard and pays them? Who supplies them with raw materials to work with? The tools to make raw materials into the desired product?
--
Harald:
I could link to a thousand, but it wouldn't matter; the mere fact of its existence marks it out as liberal propogadanda, anti-US in nature. There is no story I could link to that wouldn't be it seems.
There are those in Iraq who aren't happy, lots. There are those who aren't happy but don't hate the US or want the US out, lots.
Baby Bush
It's all going BRILLIANTLY in Iraq. They're all free now, they love us, and they're waiting patiently for us to fix the leccy and buy all their industries. There'll be an emotional handover come elections day with Bush and a Chalaboid shaking hands while the kids wave Bremer all the way to the airport. When our troops leave Iraqi women will be broken-hearted wretches.
One of the key things about satire that makes it clever and humorous is there actually being a viewpoint to mock instead of inventing one to mock.
I'd like to see someone saying everything is great in Iraq.
We invade Iraq in order to . . . whatever . . . we do it because . . the reasons don't matter apparently . . . let's say "operation Iraqi Freedom" that sounds like a reason . . .or rather since teh reasons we used were shown as pumped up and admittedly unecessarily inflated then . . . um . . . 'Freedom" will always be a good one
we do so against the wishes of the only international organization in place for judging the 'universal legitimacy' of international action
We then find that we were unprepared for all outcomes to our actions specifically those which ensued
We did not have the economic resources prepared in advance
we free the iraqi people and set up a 'government' that represents the people
Yet we sell the people's resources to International Companies before the 'people' can say anything? Is that freedom?
Is this not carpetbagging?!?!
Here is another perplexation:
we need the UN now in order to give some legitimacy
is that because it is so patently illigitimate?
We need them to come in yet we must wait to tranfer power, or we refuse to entirely
Is that wait in order to ensure that the companies with most favored buddy-buddy status get the booty they choose?
wait till we're done plundering first then the legitimacy begins
And when does the domino-O-Freedom start?
Groverat, all this time I thought you left because your position was so obviously untenable that you had to leave?!?!
huhn?
has it ever occured to you that it is possible to have been against the embargoes as well as against the idiotic fashion this war was pursued: with crimes against the American people (lies) and allienation in geopolitical terms who's reprecussion will resonate for years?
PS: please don't do your clever little line by line reading . . .that seems so pursuasive of a tactic but always seems to miss the point . . .
Originally posted by tonton
Oh. I get it. You guys believe in "tough love" for the Iraqi people. You believe you know what's good for them better than they do, and that they need to be held down to take their medicine. How arrogant and presumtuous of you. Just like "True Americans".
It may be arrogant. It may be presumptuous. It may also be the right thing to do. If you are content to let anyone and anybody do whatever they please over there because it is what they want, it's about equal chance for things to go really south as well as for things to improve. It's like expecting somebody who has been in an abusive, dysfunctional relationship for 20 years to suddenly know how to live functionally once the abusive partner has been eliminated from their life. Yeah, maybe they might have an inkling of what to do...and monkeys might fly out my butt, too. More than likely they'll be better off learning by example for a while. There's no shame in that, but it does take some humility, patience, and trust.
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's like expecting somebody who has been in an abusive, dysfunctional relationship for 20 years to suddenly know how to live functionally once the abusive partner has been eliminated from their life.
See, this is what the problem is. In order to convince yourself that you understand it you compare it to something completely different in an effort to simplify the situation.
It's not 'like expecting somebody who has been...'
It's 'like' the current situation in Iraq, and nothing else. Until you can talk about the situation without oversimplifying it by fabricating a make-believe surrogate discussion piece, you can't talk about it realistically.
Furthermore, the people that promote the view you are putting forth (as such, this includes you) are the same people that either a) straight-up flat-out lied about Iraq WMD or b) are so totally incompetent that they had no clue about the obvious state of Iraq's WMD programs. Those people are the last people that are in a position to make a valid assessment of Iraq and/or propose what to do next.
Suit yourself. I'll say what I feel, as will others, as well. You can keep ranting on about what you heard from your friend who has heard from their families in Iraq.
Is this not carpetbagging?!?!
Only if that Iraqi minister guy is not actually Iraqi.
we need the UN now in order to give some legitimacy is that because it is so patently illigitimate?
I agree, pure silliness.
Right now Iraq needs the UN like a fish needs a bicycle.
Is that wait in order to ensure that the companies with most favored buddy-buddy status get the booty they choose?
You are obviously referencing the US's policy, so I will ask you this question... do you think the UN operates differently?
Groverat, all this time I thought you left because your position was so obviously untenable that you had to leave?!?!
No, I left because the task of moderating this horrible forum left such a bad taste in my mouth I had to flee for my own sanity. I am rested and I have returned.
You do not know pain until you moderate AppleOutsider.
has it ever occured to you that it is possible to have been against the embargoes as well as against the idiotic fashion this war was pursued: with crimes against the American people (lies) and allienation in geopolitical terms who's reprecussion will resonate for years?
You can be against both, sure, but the sanctions would continue if there had been no war. You cannot avoid that reality, no matter how angry it makes you.
As far as geopolitical blah blah, Bush and Schroeder had a nice glad-handing meeting today. I am far more cynical than you, money will make this all kosher very soon (it hasn't blown over a great deal already).
PS: please don't do your clever little line by line reading . . .that seems so pursuasive of a tactic but always seems to miss the point . . .
Sorry, but the whole "I'll read your post then respond with a ramble." leads to problems as well. I prefer actually quoting people when responding because then I don't get caught up in saying "What you really think is Y!".
Originally posted by groverat
Who organizes them, comes up with the standard and pays them? Who supplies them with raw materials to work with? The tools to make raw materials into the desired product?
Iraq has done it before without us and they can do it again. You can pretend like there's no civil society there, and no means of fixing themselves, but it's not true. It's not Afghanistan. You're just avoiding the main point that Iraq can be self-sufficient.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Classic giant, I must say. You don't like opposing views, so your response is invariably, "You are incompetent to speak on this topic, therefore only my view should be taken as the gospel..."
Actually no. My response was:
See, this is what the problem is. In order to convince yourself that you understand it you compare it to something completely different in an effort to simplify the situation.
It's not 'like expecting somebody who has been...'
It's 'like' the current situation in Iraq, and nothing else. Until you can talk about the situation without oversimplifying it by fabricating a make-believe surrogate discussion piece, you can't talk about it realistically.
Furthermore, the people that promote the view you are putting forth (as such, this includes you) are the same people that either a) straight-up flat-out lied about Iraq WMD or b) are so totally incompetent that they had no clue about the obvious state of Iraq's WMD programs. Those people are the last people that are in a position to make a valid assessment of Iraq and/or propose what to do next.
Originally posted by bunge
Iraq has done it before without us and they can do it again. You can pretend like there's no civil society there, and no means of fixing themselves, but it's not true. It's not Afghanistan. You're just avoiding the main point that Iraq can be self-sufficient.
Hey, remember groverat going on and on before the war about how Iraqis can govern themselves?
Originally posted by giant
Actually no. My response was:
So you agree. Fabulous. (We know that even in agreement, giant must say "No". It's just the nature of the beast.)