If its workin' for ya, what the heck, Bill. Oh, and Italgato ... good one. It is worth remembering mobs and bakeries have a long adversarial relationship.
hobitbob, I appreciate what you are saying, and grant it is a concern. I feel, however, that the US will be instrumental in helping the Iraqi People to successfully establish an effective popular authority, which is really the only safeguard against desposts and extremists.
Timber- although I put the words in quotes, I really should have given proper attribution- The quote comes from the Spanish Philosopher- Ortega Y Gasset in his book- "The Revolt of the Masses"
Ortega meant that when people( The mob, in his view) explode in violent revolt, they sometimes wreck the bakeries.
What he meant was that, many times, when there is violent revolution and many are killed, the mob, which is looking for reform, often burn the legislatures and kill the judges thereby leaving the country without any kind of structure to continue to administer.
That is what Ortega meant by
"wreck the bakeries"
"Bread" is justice and resources
"Bakeries" are the courts and the industries.
Is Hobitbob charging Chalabi as being a towel-head?
He seems to be fine to me.
At least he is not a tyrant like Arafat or the sleazy Quaddafi.
Italgato
I'm pleased that you quote this highly reputated liberal philosopher!
Y Gasset was -before he could escape Franco and the conservative Fascists- leader of a parliamentary group of intellectuals know as La Agrupación al servicio de la república ("In the service of the republic".
From 'The revolt of masses':
Quote:Under Fascism there appears for the first time in Europe a type of man who does not want to give reasons or to be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions. This is the new thing: the right not to be reasonable, the "reason of unreason." Here I see the most palpable manifestation of the new mentality of the masses, due to their having decided to rule society without the capacity for doing so. In their political conduct the structure of the new mentality is revealed in the rawest, most convincing manner. The average man finds himself with "ideas" in his head, but he lacks the faculty of ideation. He has no conception even of the rare atmosphere in which ideals live. He wishes to have opinions, but is unwilling to accept the conditions and presuppositions that underlie all opinion. Hence his ideas are in effect nothing more than appetites in words.
To have an idea means believing one is in possession of the reasons for having it, and consequently means believing that there is such a thing as reason, a world of intelligible truths. To have ideas, to form opinions, is identical with appealing to such an authority, submitting oneself to it, accepting its code and its decisions, and therefore believing that the highest form of intercommunication is the dialogue in which the reasons for our ideas are discussed. But the mass-man would feel himself lost if he accepted discussion, and instinctively repudiates the obligation of accepting that supreme authority lying outside himself. Hence the "new thing" in Europe is "to have done with discussions," and detestation is expressed for all forms of intercommunication, which imply acceptance of objective standards, ranging from conversation to Parliament, and taking in science. This means that there is a renunciation of the common life of barbarism. All the normal processes are suppressed in order to arrive directly at the imposition of what is desired. The hermeticism of the soul which, as we have seen before, urges the mass to intervene in the whole of public life.
Italgato, I see you assume incorrectly that I am neither familiar with y Gasset nor with the context and intent of that particular allegorical statement. I am afraid you take much on yourself that does not have foundation. I sense that not only are you fond of baiting, you come off as a master of the practice. You may infer what you wish; however, the implication I intend should be clear.
Italgato wrote:It will indeed take a long time to lead the Iraqis into the light. They are a group of savages from the stone age.
Italgato,
You demand evidence for just about anything someone else says. As you are now aware I do this to you every now and then. I guess this is one of the "thens".
Can you please provide evidence for your claim that the modern Iraqi population is from "the stone age"? I was not aware that the Iraqi life expectancy was so impressive. Perhaps it was meaningless rhetoric?
I won't try to answer for Italgato-- but I have referred to some Iraqi practices as 'out of the Stone Age'.
I was concentrating that remark on the practices of 'cleansing' the family by killing girls or women who have been raped. This is an uncivilized practice, which should be addressed for what it is--not looked over, or excused, IMO. It isn't a wholesale indictment of the entire Arab world--but I can't understand why it isn't decried roundly.
These so-called 'honour killings' seem to happen elsewhere, too:
Quote:
Scotland Yard believe there were 12 'honour killings' in the UK last year and said they were not restricted to Muslims, but also occurred in Sikh and Christian families.
Sofia wrote:I won't try to answer for Italgato-- but I have referred to some Iraqi practices as 'out of the Stone Age'.
I was concentrating that remark on the practices of 'cleansing' the family by killing girls or women who have been raped. This is an uncivilized practice, which should be addressed for what it is--not looked over, or excused, IMO. It isn't a wholesale indictment of the entire Arab world--but I can't understand why it isn't decried roundly.
Certain practices are primitive, but it's odd to label the Iraqi people as savages and from the stone age. They are less deserving of such a vilification than are other peoples.
Quote:Iraqi WMD may have been bluff
By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest, The Washington Post
With no chemical or biological weapons yet found in Iraq, the U.S. official in charge of the search for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction is pursuing the possibility that the Iraqi leader was bluffing, pretending he had distributed them to his most loyal commanders to deter the United States from invading.
SUCH A possibility is one element in the interim report that David Kay, who heads the 1,200-person, CIA-lead team in Iraq, will describe before the House and Senate intelligence committees on Thursday, according to people familiar with his planned testimony.
MISINFORMATION?
In particular, Kay has examined prewar Iraqi communications collected by U.S. intelligence agencies indicating that Iraqi commanders -- including Ali Hassan Majeed, also known as "Chemical Ali" -- were given the authority to launch weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops as they advanced north from Kuwait.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/974235.asp?0cv=CB10
Clearly, somebody "Got it wrong". Perhaps the source of the error lay not in The Current Administration but in Saddam's own machinations. An unarmed criminal shot by police as a result of intentionally giving the impression of being armed has essentially committed suicide.
Responding to Walter's 'honor killings'
...and it is just as wrong when others do it. That doesn't negate the fact that it is widely practiced in Iraq. Pointing to ritualistic murder in Location B doesn't negate what's going on in Location A. And, when the practice is inherent in a religion, it should be said, and addressed.
I believe when real education replaces government sponsered brainwashing, these things will begin to change.
Sofia wrote:Responding to Walter's 'honor killings'
...and it is just as wrong when others do it. That doesn't negate the fact that it is widely practiced in Iraq. Pointing to ritualistic murder in Location B doesn't negate what's going on in Location A. And, when the practice is inherent in a religion, it should be said, and addressed.
I believe when real education replaces government sponsered brainwashing, these things will begin to change.
"out of stone age", as you said.
Timber,
That theory is catching on. Too bad, because it has no supporting evidence whatsoever and it's wrong (says me, with no supporting evidence whatsoever).
Craven--
What about this?
From Timber's excerpt...
Quote:In particular, Kay has examined prewar Iraqi communications collected by U.S. intelligence agencies indicating that Iraqi commanders -- including Ali Hassan Majeed, also known as "Chemical Ali" -- were given the authority to launch weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops as they advanced north from Kuwait.
If we find evidence that Saddam gave authority to use WMDs on US troops, doesn't that in the very least, prove Saddam was
saying he had WMDs?
And,
if he said it in other situations, picked up by US intel, doesn't that give evidence we had WMD intel from what we
considered a reliable source?
Sofia,
I just read Timber's article and it's not the theory I was commenting on. That was a brainfart on my part.
I was referring to the increasingly popular theory that Saddam himself was fooled by subordinates. I find that to be a very very ludicrous theory.
As to this one we claimed to have intercepted many "communications" "proving" that Saddam had WMDs. I take them with a grain of salt right now.
The communications that I have actually seen (as opposed to only seeing interpretation of) were so vague that WMDs could have been discussed.. or Egg McMuffins.
CDK, I'm not as skeptical of it as you are; months ago, on at least one of the Iraq threads, I referenced Intel of interceptiion of precisely such orders. Should there be, and I believe there likely is, credible other-party corroboration, such as verifiable hard-copy or electronic copies of or direct reference to such orders, the theory gains much creedence. I find it extremely plausible ... even embarrassing-to-have-overlooked plausible.
Certainly, we may at least be assured of further pursuit of the theory, whether it eventually is validated, and/or accepted, or not. The whole debacle smacks of promising to become one of those historic controversies which defy satisfactory resolution; I think it likely there will always be differing, yet equally informed and rational opinions. I suspect this will not "Go Away" for a long, long time, if ever.
I've seen intel that was supposed to have been about WMDs, like I said it was vague enough that they could have been talking about WMDs or they could have been talking about the local hooker.
If that's all taht is ever produced I agree that everyone will continue to agree to disagree on this.
"It will indeed take a long time to lead the Iraqis into the light. They are a group of savages from the stone age."
The author is rude arrogant and ignorant. It is embarrassing to see.
I don't have links handy at the moment, so I'll only say I recall having read reports, concerning a so-called "Red Line" our advance assumed it approached, which specifically referrenced intercepted Iraqi orders for the relase of "Special Weapons" to the authority and discretion of Senior Field Commanders. I wouldn't see how "Special Weapons" could be construed to be McMuffins, no matter how one feels about cholesterol.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:"It will indeed take a long time to lead the Iraqis into the light. They are a group of savages from the stone age."
The author is rude arrogant and ignorant. It is embarrassing to see.
The comment itself may be rude, arrogant, ignorant, insensitive or otherwise reprehensible. The author may or may not be possessed of those or similar attributes. To assert that such would be the case is to wound one's self with the other edge of the same blade.
