Cindy Sheehan: My son in Heaven and the Angels

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]bringing them home w/ their tails between their legs dishonors them[/quote]

[b]At least they will be alive and have tails[/b]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Aug 30 2005, 09:12 PM']Really, cuz it's a standard part of the rhetoric being [url="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22anti-freedom+fighters%22&btnG=Google+Search"]tossed[/url] around.
[right][post="138691"][/post][/right][/quote]

i hadn't realized... i am not as impressed w/ myself

well, what is a better general term in your opinion, for who we are fighting in iraq right now... aren't they fighting against democracy and for a gov't that gives little to no rights??

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 30 2005, 09:21 PM'][b]At least they will be alive and have tails[/b]
[right][post="138699"][/post][/right][/quote]



i refuse to lose to bastards that only want to scare us away... we are fighting for a just cause, and we WILL win... reguardless people like you and homer that want us to come home (coming home now emboldens terrorists/insurgants/whatever the hell you guys want to call them, which ='s they win and the kurds among everyone else, is once again let down and america is less safe, etc....)

i don't understand your position anymore at all, bj...

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Aug 31 2005, 10:18 AM']i hadn't realized... i am not as impressed w/ myself

well, what is a better general term in your opinion, for who we are fighting in iraq right now... aren't they fighting against democracy and for a gov't that gives little to no rights??
[right][post="139062"][/post][/right][/quote]

Good question. I try to be as clinical as possible when thinking about stuff like this.

My thoughts in two parts:

1) One has to be careful about the rhetoric used by our pols. The choice of language and terms used to describe a situation or plan can be a boon or a bane, depending upon the intent of the speaker.

My first experience in this regard was as a kid. My folks were both big Nixon supporters and I have distinct memories of Nixon and all his talk (and Kissinger's later rhetoric as well) about getting out of Vietnam. "I have a plan..." etc... in the 68 campaign. And, of course, he had no plan and we didn't fully get out of that fiasco until 75. Nixon's intent was to beat Humphrey and get elected, not to get out of Vietnam. Folks were duped. Similarly, in this last campaign, whenever Kerry started talking like this in the last campaign, I thought: "Here we go again..." (I don't need to remind you what I think of Bush's rhetoric!)

Pols, by virtue of their profession and independent of their party line, tend to be deceptive in this respect. What they want is one thing, what they'll tell you is often another thing, so long as it helps them gain their real goal. There are exceptions, but they tend to prove the rule.

The media is, well, the media. Just like you or me or anyone, it is the people who work at such places who choose what to report on and how to report on it. It does little good to talk about the media as though it were some monolith. It is not monolithic, though it is useful to probe for the axiomatic bases from which a publication or other media outlook derives its perspective. Who writes there? What is their history/background? What themes are common? What are the axioms from which their outlook stems?

We've all run into folks who say "They... ." When I do, I usually end up asking, just who do you mean by "They?" What one finds, generally, is that the person does not have a very refined idea, in terms of precise causality, of just who "They" are and why "They" do the things they supposedly do.

Think about conspiracies. Do conspiracies exist? Of course. The term, in itself, is rather benign. But, folks who we deride as "conspiracy theorists" are so derided because there is a tendency to blame events and motives on the monolithic "They" or on some other grouping that has mystical qualities and powers. It's a belief in magic, in a way--based on flaws in epistemological outlook.

BTW, some critics/skeptics of "conspiracy theories" tend to commit similar epistemological mistakes at the other end of the spectrum. Just as magical in origin, these skeptics refuse to believe that folks do sometimes get together and work towards a specific goal or goals. Where the conspiracies theorists tend to take evidence and collate it in mystical and causally unrelated ways, some skeptics tend to ignor evidence, even when it is abundant. Thus, both views are expressions of similar symptoms: an inadequate methodology to deal with cause and effect.

Hence, the only safeguard individual citizens have to cut through the smoke and mirrors is to develop a refined quality of judgement that is clinical in nature and can be separated from one's personal ideological preferences. When you are being clinical, be clinical with one part of your mind and use that to inform the part of your mind that has partisan preferences. In balance, one tends to be more level-headed that way. As to specific methods, that's what philosophy is all about.

2) Your specific questions. I'm not sure there is a singular term to describe those who oppose us in Iraq, though conceptually, I tend to prefer a distinction between an insurgency and terrorism. One of the difficulties in sorting the wheat from the chaff is that both tend to employ methods associated with low intensity warfare. Perhaps the key litmus, for me, is who gets targetted: in the former, it tends to be military components of a perceived enemy; in the latter, innocents are often targetted.

I'll break it down as I see it, based on the reports of our pols and our media:

--there are Islamic fundamentalists who are associated with the old Afgani operations;
--there are Sunnis, in factions;
--there are Kurds, in factions;
--there are a couple of varieties of Shi'ites (Sadr's grouping and SCIRI)
--there are a number of militias operating there;
--there are our special ops forces roaming around;
--there are criminal gangs associated with the black economy (and all countries have a black economy to some extent)
--there are clans and tribes who bear grudges;
--there are personal familial grudges (we call 'em feuds in Appalachia);
--there are state-sponsored groups running around, such as the Mujahedin-e Khalq;
--there are no doubt intel agencies with presences, too, some running ops, including Iran, Syria, Turkey, Israel, Russia, etc...

So, in this Mess O' Potamia (as Jon Stewart describes it), does the descriptor, "anti-freedom fighters" really have any meaning, other than the meaning intended for it to have by the pols using the term? No, not really. The term is used by some pols because it is a useful word to help them gain their goal: to garner support for their policies.

Let me be ludicrous for a moment. It helps. How many Iraqis come home from a hard day's work, kiss the wife, and say this?

"Whew, what a tough day. This anti-freedom fighting sure keeps me busy. I can't wait until we've defeated democracy and a government that supports human rights. Then we can go on vacation. How's that sound, Jasmine? Now, get me some tea."

The facts are: there are many motives and cross-purposes in that cauldron stirring up chaos. It helps to know the rhetoric for what it is, and to assess the situation with more precision. Skipping forward a little bit, because this is long already, a better cliche to start one's analysis from might be the one Colin Powell used: "You break it, you buy it..." etc.

We've opened up a can of worms and if we are going to salvage anything good from the situation, we need to think really hard about how to:

--decrease the fighting and bloodshed;
--provide reasons for Iraqis to cooperate with each other;
--get some semblance of an economy going;
--restore basic services to people;

We can't simply force-feed a document on the Iraqis, call it a Constitution, and declare victory.

[Guest bengalrick]

excellent post homer... i plan to reply back, though w/ the novels you write, i'm backlogged a couple of posts

[Homer_Rice]

Yeah, sorry about that. I know I'm windy!

Guy called me a smartass the other day. I said, "You're half right, we just disagree on which half."

[Guest bengalrick]

i absorbed most of your other posts, and had many thoughts as i read them.... but one thing did jump out at me... hypothetically, where do you think iraq would be right now, w/out us stepping in?? weren't they pushing to get the sanctions taken off of them??

another thing, i am reading through the [url="http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/WMD_Timeline_Events.html"]dulfer report timeline[/url], and want to ask you why this is so discredited, or the facts were ignored b/c the "stockpiles" weren't found??? it clearly shows that he was telling everyone he had them, which makes go back to my original position of the war, and consider the climate and the threat that saddam continually was to us... we can't look in hindsight and say it was all talk... we have to go back to that time and realize what we thought we were facing... when we went into iraq for the first gulf war, we were very surprised on how far along they were w/ their various weapons programs... you say very bluntly that i was lied to often on here, but what was a lied to about??

here are some key things i found from the dulfer report timeline:

05-Aug-98 Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) announces end of no-notice UN inspections

14-Nov-98 Under US military threat Iraq agrees to resume inspections

17-Dec-98 Desert Fox

19-Dec-98 Iraq declares that UNSCOM will never be allowed to return

March 1999 Iraq media calls for strikes on US targets to force change in US policy

1999 Regime procurement with Bulgaria, France, FRY, India, Jordan, North Korea, Russia, and Ukraine leads to further sanctions erosion

March 2000 Fallujah II complex renovates chlorine and phenol lines and restarts

[b]June 2000 Saddam speech: Iraq cannot give up its weapons if neighbors do not[/b]

20-May-01 Iraqi embassy in Nairobi reports rejecting an opportunity to buy uranium

2001 Intensified Iraqi intel focus on Iranian nuclear program

2001 Regime procurement with Belarus, Bulgaria, France, FRY, India, Jordan, North Korea, PRC, South Korea, Syria, Russia and Ukraine leads to further sanctions erosion

mid 2001 Aluminum tubes destined for Iraq captured in Jordan

24-Aug-01 First successful launch of Al Samud II

11-Sep-01 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington

12-Sep-01 Iraq misinterprets US reaction to events of 9/11; adopts ill-conceived diplomatic position

Dec 2001 Iraq begins serial production of the Al Samud II

Late 2001 Around this time, Iraqi scientists tell Regime leaders they cannot produce WMD

29-Jan-02 Bush refers to ‘Axis of Evil’ in State of the Union address

[b]12-Feb-02 Saddam declares “We will not return to it” with reference to nuclear weapons[/b]

2002 [b] Regime procurement with Belarus, France, FRY, India, Jordan, PRC, Russia, Syria and Ukraine leads to further sanctions erosion[/b]

Sep 02 Over 900,000 nerve agent antidote autoinjectors had been purchased





the list goes on and on.... you can't act like we would be in a better place right now, if saddam were the leader of that country...



and i looked up [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Duelfer"]charles duelfer[/url] in wikipedia, and this is what it says: [i]Charles A. Duelfer replaced David Kay in January 2004 as the leader of the Iraq Survey Group, which was the United States' search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His investigation has uncovered several bribes in the Oil for Food program, numerous violations of proscribed weapons research and facilities, but no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.[/i]


and b/c we didn't FIND stockpiles of WMD's, we assume they he got rid of them from the past?? and what about the bribes and violations of weapons research and facilities?? look at the timeline, and watch france and russia "mysteriously" try to erode UN sanctions, and then put them in perspective w/ the oil for food scandal... and you call Bush a liar for taking a madmans word that he has WMD's??? i don't see how this is an unjust war that isn't helping anything... i really don't... call me a neocon or whatever, but thats how i feel and until i am proven that saddam was no threat to us, here or at american embassies abroad, i will continue to believe we are doing the right thing... there are even many links from AQ to iraq, that i have posted many times on these boards... he was a threat...... was being the key word... not iraq is bitching at each other about the constitution.... THE CONSTITUTION OF IRAQ!!!! it is a huge step for them, and they are doing it democratically...

[Lawman]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Aug 31 2005, 09:01 PM']i absorbed most of your other posts, and had many thoughts as i read them.... but one thing did jump out at me... hypothetically, where do you think iraq would be right now, w/out us stepping in?? weren't they pushing to get the sanctions taken off of them??

another thing, i am reading through the [url="http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/WMD_Timeline_Events.html"]dulfer report timeline[/url], and want to ask you why this is so discredited, or the facts were ignored b/c the "stockpiles" weren't found??? it clearly shows that he was telling everyone he had them, which makes go back to my original position of the war, and consider the climate and the threat that saddam continually was to us... we can't look in hindsight and say it was all talk... we have to go back to that time and realize what we thought we were facing... when we went into iraq for the first gulf war, we were very surprised on how far along they were w/ their various weapons programs... you say very bluntly that i was lied to often on here, but what was a lied to about??

here are some key things i found from the dulfer report timeline:

05-Aug-98    Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) announces end of no-notice UN inspections

14-Nov-98    Under US military threat Iraq agrees to resume inspections

17-Dec-98    Desert Fox

19-Dec-98  Iraq declares that UNSCOM will never be allowed to return

March 1999    Iraq media calls for strikes on US targets to force change in US policy

1999    Regime procurement with Bulgaria, France, FRY, India, Jordan, North Korea, Russia, and Ukraine leads to further sanctions erosion

March 2000    Fallujah II complex renovates chlorine and phenol lines and restarts

[b]June 2000    Saddam speech: Iraq cannot give up its weapons if neighbors do not[/b]

20-May-01    Iraqi embassy in Nairobi reports rejecting an opportunity to buy uranium

2001    Intensified Iraqi intel focus on Iranian nuclear program

2001    Regime procurement with Belarus, Bulgaria, France, FRY, India, Jordan, North Korea, PRC, South Korea, Syria, Russia and Ukraine leads to further sanctions erosion

mid 2001    Aluminum tubes destined for Iraq captured in Jordan

24-Aug-01    First successful launch of Al Samud II

11-Sep-01    9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington

12-Sep-01  Iraq misinterprets US reaction to events of 9/11; adopts ill-conceived diplomatic position

Dec 2001    Iraq begins serial production of the Al Samud II

Late 2001    Around this time, Iraqi scientists tell Regime leaders they cannot produce WMD

29-Jan-02    Bush refers to ‘Axis of Evil’ in State of the Union address

[b]12-Feb-02    Saddam declares “We will not return to it” with reference to nuclear weapons[/b]

2002  [b] Regime procurement with Belarus, France, FRY, India, Jordan, PRC, Russia, Syria and Ukraine leads to further sanctions erosion[/b]

Sep 02    Over 900,000 nerve agent antidote autoinjectors had been purchased
the list goes on and on.... you can't act like we would be in a better place right now, if saddam were the leader of that country...
and i looked up [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Duelfer"]charles duelfer[/url] in wikipedia, and this is what it says: [i]Charles A. Duelfer replaced David Kay in January 2004 as the leader of the Iraq Survey Group, which was the United States' search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His investigation has uncovered several bribes in the Oil for Food program, numerous violations of proscribed weapons research and facilities, but no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.[/i]
and b/c we didn't FIND stockpiles of WMD's, we assume they he got rid of them from the past?? and what about the bribes and violations of weapons research and facilities?? look at the timeline, and watch france and russia "mysteriously" try to erode UN sanctions, and then put them in perspective w/ the oil for food scandal... and you call Bush a liar for taking a madmans word that he has WMD's??? i don't see how this is an unjust war that isn't helping anything... i really don't... call me a neocon or whatever, but thats how i feel and until i am proven that saddam was no threat to us, here or at american embassies abroad, i will continue to believe we are doing the right thing... there are even many links from AQ to iraq, that i have posted many times on these boards... he was a threat...... was being the key word... not iraq is bitching at each other about the constitution.... THE CONSTITUTION OF IRAQ!!!! it is a huge step for them, and they are doing it democratically...
[right][post="139438"][/post][/right][/quote]
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//41.gif[/img] Great post Bengalrick

[quote].... you can't act like we would be in a better place right now, if saddam were the leader of that country...[/quote]
... or either of his sons.

[quote]... there are even many links from AQ to iraq, that i have posted many times on these boards...[/quote]

On another thread, you took the test to see if you lived in Germany in 1941, if you would be a Nazi.... IMO, the 300,000 Iraqi's found in the mass graves made up the 5% of the population referred to as the Resistance.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Aug 31 2005, 08:01 PM']i absorbed most of your other posts, and had many thoughts as i read them.... but one thing did jump out at me... hypothetically, where do you think iraq would be right now, w/out us stepping in?? weren't they pushing to get the sanctions taken off of them??[/quote]

Around 93/94, I don't precisely remember, I was approached by a friend of mine who asked for a contribution to a fund that was packaging dry milk and medical supplies for Iraqi kids who were being hurt by the sanctions. I mention this because it points to the interplay between the UN, the regime, and the Clinton admin's hypocrisy on the Iraq question. Call that the 'realist geopolitical view" and by that I mean the business-as-usual realpolitick crowd. We now know that any and all of these groupings could have done a lot more to prevent the starvation and disease that afflicted many of the innocents in post-Desert Storm Iraq.

Yet, as it briefly surfaced prior to the recent war, many of those realists, including Scowcroft and others close to Bush 41 (a realist par excellance) warned about the possible consequences of an invasion.

Once could make a pretty good argument that the world would be in better shape now had we not invaded Iraq, even by the standards of the realists. So, br, be clinical and see if you can build that argument, even if you might disagree with it.