Who Lost Iraq?

edgarblythe's source wrote:

Kissinger said if any progress is to be made in the region, the U.S. must enter into dialogue with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran.

Here is a point no one wants to publicly address. The majority of the Iraqi population is Shi'ite. The likelihood is that the Kurds can work with the Shi'ites--but the Sunnis never will, nor will the Shi'ites accept the cooperation of the Sunnis. Iran is the only Shi'ite nation in the world, and the ties between Iraqi and Persian Shi'ites are close and of long-standing.

But the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad have demonized the Persians, and are unalterably opposed to any rapprochement with Iran, with any engagement. However, it is only sensible to recognize that Iran is the one nation which has a plausible chance of influencing the Iraqi Shi'ites.

The alternative is the deepening of the morass in which we now find ourselves--as the Shi'ites increasingly take control, and take vengeance for four generations of Sunni oppression and murder.

0 Replies

I don't need any links for the Guardian article quote above.

It looks like disinformation to me or a rough draft for a chapter in a conspiracy theory novel.

It seems based on what somebody said or claimed and on nothing else.

It's hearsay.

But those who seek to give it credibility are quite predictable.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I don't need any links for the Guardian article quote above.
It looks like disinformation to me or a rough draft for a chapter in a conspiracy theory novel.
It seems based on what somebody said or claimed and on nothing else.
It's hearsay.
But those who seek to give it credibility are quite predictable.

I didn't provide the link to YOU. I provided it for those who asked for it since xingu refused to provide it, probably due to laziness.

BBB

0 Replies

That's unfair, Aunt Bee. Xingu explained that he has posted the entire article. I agree with him that others can search for the article if they feel they can find other information which would help them judge the value of the posted material.

However, i don't agree with anyone who suggests that not providing the links is a failure to provide useful information. Not only can one search for the article one's self if one believes that there are ancillary links or other material that one would like to consider--but the name of the publishing organization and the author are there.

In historiography, that's about all you need in addition to the text, and any references in the text. If you read something about which you are dubious, and you know the publisher and the author, you might make a judgment on the source based on the publisher or the author--but otherwise, it is the body of the published material which is under scrutiny, and to which one objects, or with which one agrees.

0 Replies

Setanta

Setanta wrote:

That's unfair, Aunt Bee. Xingu explained that he has posted the entire article. I agree with him that others can search for the article if they feel they can find other information which would help them judge the value of the posted material.

However, i don't agree with anyone who suggests that not providing the links is a failure to provide useful information. Not only can one search for the article one's self if one believes that there are ancillary links or other material that one would like to consider--but the name of the publishing organization and the author are there.

In historiography, that's about all you need in addition to the text, and any references in the text. If you read something about which you are dubious, and you know the publisher and the author, you might make a judgment on the source based on the publisher or the author--but otherwise, it is the body of the published material which is under scrutiny, and to which one objects, or with which one agrees.

Normally, I would agree with you, but in this case, xingu posted about five responses about why he should not have to provide the link. Some people reject any information or opinion, regardless of its validity, based on their opinion of the author. Spendus demonstrated that bias.

As you know, I often post entire articles that include the source. Sometimes the link is provided. Some people complain that I should only post the link along with an introduction paragraph. I've explained many times that a few days later finding the link may be difficult if not impossible due to time passing and some sources requiring subscription for access to archives. I've always tried, as a courtesy, to provide links if requested. I was annoyed with xingu because he argued rather than be courteous and accommodating. He seemed to be stubborn or lazy.

BBB

0 Replies

BBB wrote-

Quote:

Spendus demonstrated that bias.

Not in the least.

The article contained quite sufficient to satisfy me that it was worthless. I would anticipate that others would come to the same conclusion.

It was the Guardian that showed the bias by questioning or seeking to discredit our policies on the basis of what some unknown Moroccan gentleman said.

The only thing we know about Omar Nasiri is that his name is not Omar Nasiri.

0 Replies

Re: Setanta

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Setanta wrote:
That's unfair, Aunt Bee. Xingu explained that he has posted the entire article. I agree with him that others can search for the article if they feel they can find other information which would help them judge the value of the posted material.

However, i don't agree with anyone who suggests that not providing the links is a failure to provide useful information. Not only can one search for the article one's self if one believes that there are ancillary links or other material that one would like to consider--but the name of the publishing organization and the author are there.

In historiography, that's about all you need in addition to the text, and any references in the text. If you read something about which you are dubious, and you know the publisher and the author, you might make a judgment on the source based on the publisher or the author--but otherwise, it is the body of the published material which is under scrutiny, and to which one objects, or with which one agrees.

Normally, I would agree with you, but in this case, xingu posted about five responses about why he should not have to provide the link. Some people reject any information or opinion, regardless of its validity, based on their opinion of the author. Spendus demonstrated that bias.

As you know, I often post entire articles that include the source. Sometimes the link is provided. Some people complain that I should only post the link along with an introduction paragraph. I've explained many times that a few days later finding the link may be difficult if not impossible due to time passing and some sources requiring subscription for access to archives. I've always tried, as a courtesy, to provide links if requested. I was annoyed with xingu because he argued rather than be courteous and accommodating. He seemed to be stubborn or lazy.

BBB

As I mentioned I did not post the link because I posted the whole article. The link is irreverent to the article, especially if the article is copied and posted on more than one website.

An article should be judge and argued on its content, not the link it was published on. I might point out to you that my article you posted a link to already said who published the article; Guardian. Is posting the link going to provide any more information on the article or its contents?

Quote:

Some people reject any information or opinion, regardless of its validity, based on their opinion of the author. Spendus demonstrated that bias.

That's a reflection on the close-mindedness of certain people and not the article or its contents. If anyone wants to reject an article let them reject it on the basis of what it says and not who publishes it. And if they do reject let them present a counter argument based on the facts of the article and not its publisher.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

McTag-

As I have said, the question is not answerable in this context and nor is it by us in quick and easy brushstrokes.

Ours not to reason why
Ours but to do and die.

Like a lamb to the slaughter? Silly pillock.

Quote:

I haven't reached any conclusions and have no standpoint. I support our governments and the process they have set in train. The idea that they, like me, baffle you is not really of much consequence.

Disingenuous. And that idea is yours, not mine.

Quote:

I asked a question too. What do you suggest from here on?

I did not join in order to advise Blair and Bushco what they should do. I merely begged them not to do what they did, namely to invade a defenceless and largely innocent sovereign nation and bring about widespread slaughter.
Since then, I have contented myself with pointing out the folly and the immorality of that, and the ill effects, to those who still support Bushco.

Indeed if you read the article I posted earlier (Simon Jenkins, Guardian) you will know that there is nothing within Iraq at any rate that we can "do". All our forces there can do, is take shelter. They are operationally impotent, and the construction contractors have pulled out.

"Do"? Like the advice given the traveller in Ireland asking for directions, "I would not start from here."

0 Replies

Xingu,

I always post a link, because there have been issues in the past where people have copied and pasted articles and left out the best/worst parts. You don't know if an article is posted in full or not without a link; and it's far easier to add it to the original post than to force 30-40 people to hunt down the link themselves, in terms of time spent.

I don't think it is neccessary to copy links inside of articles, you can just refer to the original article for the link.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I have no evidence upon which to assume that Xingu is stubborn or lazy, and continue to consider that unfair of you.

As for judging material based on the source, i consider that perfectly reasonable. I don't consider the member to whom you refer to be reasonable, but i've got him on "ignore," and won't comment on any of his posts, as i now cannot read them anyway.

Criticizing a source is reasonable. I've just come from a post in which i criticized another member who used a "Free Republic" article as a basis for criticizing Snopes. In the first place, the Freeper article did not address the subject of the Snopes article. In the second place, "Free Republic" is a notoriously rightwing and unreliable web site. I consider criticism of the source reasonable in that case, and clearly stated why i consider Free Republic unreliable, and why i consider Snopes reliable.

As you know, i chiefly study history. There is an "historian" by the name of Howard Zinn. You can read about Zinn in the Wikipedia article. Zinn is well known (notorious, i would say) for his "People's History" series. More than 20 years ago, having already heard bad things about Zinn, someone i knew gave me a copy of his A People's History of the United States. I tried to read it, i truly did, but i eventually gave up in disgust. Zinn is most often attacked by rightwing types, and anti-communist types. For as much as it is distasteful for me to find myself in such company, i agree with the comment by Daniel Flynn when he says of Zinn that ""his is a captive mind long closed by ideology."

I will give you an example. In the beginning of his A People's History of the United States, Zinn claims that Columbus began a genocide against the "Indians" of the Caribbean. This is disingenuous, and a willful distortion of history. When Columbus arrived in the Bahamas, the Spaniards met locals whom they called los Indios, the in the belief that they had reached the East Indies. More specifically, they referred to these people as Arawaks. There are actually many tribes which make up those whom the Spaniards refer to as Arawaks, and many other tribes to whom the Spaniards referred as Caribs. These latter are now believed to have entered the Caribbean from the south, and to have killed (and eaten) the Arawak men they encountered, and to have taken the women as wives. Long considered by leftwing historians a propaganda, the fact that Carib women spoken what was very nearly an entirely different language, and which was comprehensible to the Arawak of the Lesser Antilles supports the view that Carib men had taken them as slaves and kept them in subjection.

When Columbus and the Spaniards arrived, the Arawak had been under attack by the Caribs for more than a century. They were impressed with the apparent might of the Spanish, and lead them to the Greater Antilles--to Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic), and to Cuba and Jamaica. The brother of Columbus was pretty damned bloodthirsty, but i don't consider it reasonable to condemn him for the acts of his brother. There is no doubt that the Conquistadores made slaves of the Arawak (the Taino of Cuba and other tribes they lumped together under the heading of Arawak). One on of Columbus' later voyages (1502), the friar Bartolomé de las Casas was his cleric. Las Casas edited and published Columbus' journals, and published Historia de las Indias. He was a tireless worker for the end of slavery for los indios, on the basis of the idea that if they converted to Christianity, they were entitled to at least the protections afforded to peons in Spain. Frustrated for most of his life, and often threatened with his life, his efforts nevertheless culminated in the foundation of the Indies Commission, a bureau of the Spanish Inquisition whose duty was to assure the "decent" treatment of the Indians. We might not consider the living conditions of peons to be "decent," but by the standards of the day, it was an enlightened attitude, and certainly better than the slavery which they endured in the beginning.

It is on the basis of the writings of las Casas that Columbus is habitually condemned. But nowhere in his writings does las Casas condemn Columbus for practicing or condoning slavery, or the slaughter of the native populations. Zinn makes his accusation and disposes of Columbus as a genocidal criminal in two short lines at the beginning of his pathetic pseudo-history. You can't even find a reference in the book to support the charge he levels against Columbus. I have no particular brief to defend Columbus, but i am as disgusted by distortions of the historical record when practiced by Zinn as i am when practiced by anyone on the right.

Some of the most unrealistic and persistent of historical myths surround the story of the clash between Europeans and Amerindians. Zinn not only does nothing to correct the record, he perpetuates what are unsound stories and no history at all, and has introduced the phoney "long-suffering, gentle Indian" myth to newer generations, and all in the name of his ideological prejudices. It is worth remembering that Marx considered history to be a malleable subject, which should be enlisted in the cause of ideology, without regard to probity in academic research and reporting.

Therefore, if someone comes up with Zinn as a source, i will immediately condemn their claims on the basis of the source, and am always prepared to back up my criticisms of Zinn.

It is always perfectly reasonable to condemn a source.

EDIT: It is of course, also perfectly reasonable to point out that many Indians died from being enslaved by the Spaniard. It is also reasonable to point out that the Conquistadores were most of them veterans of Cordova's campaigns in Italy, and that they brought malaria from Italy to the "New World." At least as many, if not more, Indians died from malaria as from the effects of being enslaved. You will never learn that by reading Zinn, though.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Xingu,

I always post a link, because there have been issues in the past where people have copied and pasted articles and left out the best/worst parts. You don't know if an article is posted in full or not without a link; and it's far easier to add it to the original post than to force 30-40 people to hunt down the link themselves, in terms of time spent.

I don't think it is neccessary to copy links inside of articles, you can just refer to the original article for the link.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

If I paste a portion of an article I always post the source. If I post 100% of the article I don't see the need to post the source.

Setanta just mentioned that a source may be important (an author in this case) because of the prejudice he/she may harbor. But again if that person is closeminded then whatever they publish should be ripped apart based on what they wrote and not on who wrote it. How can we know that Howard Zinn, the person in Setanta's example, can't write something reasonable or truthful? Perhaps not but if not then find the misinformation or lies in the article and expose them. Looking at Zinn or Ann Coulter one should expect lies and misinformation because of their strong ideological bant but don't say it without proving it. Proving their lies through exposure is far more effective than saying they're lying because of who they are.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

My 2 cents Blatham...

This war was lost before it bagan due to 2 main reasons.

1. Political Correctness and maintaing a proper image.
2. 24 hour news and media coverage

War is a brutal, violent, bloody mess. It's that way by design so as to avoid it if at all possible. Once it was decided that war was going to be waged, it should have been waged at 100% levels. Instead, the US has been at about the 20% level because we must maintain the proper global image.

I am not sure that George Bush and the neo-cons are really burdened by the desire to maintain "proper global image", as you call it. The administration clearly did not care about it, when they went against world (and UN) consensus and attacked the sovereign nation of Iraq.

McGentrix wrote:

I am very proud of the way our military forces have behaved and acted throughout this campaign. I have the luxury of staying home and watching and waiting for them to come home to give me the real scoop on what's happening. They are highly trained professionals that excel at their jobs.

re: Abu Ghraib

McGentrix wrote:

I do blame the media for limiting our ability to strike and for not providing a balanced perspective.

Stalin and Hitler would have agreed with you.

0 Replies

Quote:

If I paste a portion of an article I always post the source. If I post 100% of the article I don't see the need to post the source.

I just explained the need - it's twofold:

First, the reader has no real way of knowing whether or not you posted 100% of the article, and there have been significant instances where this has not been the case in the past.

Second, I and others many times like to read the article in the orignal format (which often includes pictures, graphs, and additional links). It only takes a few seconds to include the link on your end, or it takes a minute of searching for each person who wants to track it back.

It's no biggie, just a question of netiquette

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A propos of the post by Heartofthesun:

Quote:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Obviously we differ on how to win wars.

again, why was a war waged with Iraq? how are the dots between 9/11 and iraq connected? and if it's terrorists that you are after, why not pakistan? saudi arabia?

McGentrix wrote:

The terrorists and insurgents use barbaric, brutal means to keep Iraq unstable.

But Saddam had managed to keep things held tight. So, what do you do? you oust Saddam without a plan to plug the hole he leaves behind?

McGentrix wrote:

A massive strike, early in the insurgency, would have eliminated much of the strife that we are seeing now. We should have cut the head off every snake that popped it's head up, when it popped up.

over HALF A MILLION civilian Iraqi's lay dead post-US invasion. we can afford the luxury of argument and debate self-righteousness, affront, revenge, anger, disgust and morality. but the fact still remains: over HALF A MILLION civilian iraqi's lay dead post-US invasion. HALF A MILLION civilian IRAQI'S. like that 2 year old little boy that was accompanying his dad to a neighbourhood tea shop on Saturday morning. he had his head blown off.

McG is blood-thirsty in his attempt to seek revenge. wouldn't you know that the most powerful force is one's conscience?
had the US responded in a manner that was just and driven by conscience following 9/11, it would have represented what the founding fathers of this nation intended for the american spirit to be, and the world would have applauded. instead, it behaved like the representation of an incensed rabble, thirsty for blood.
the US has proved itself to be the largest terrorist nation on earth. it is reprehensible, in my opinion. and every day that passes, i feel the burden of death on my soul get heavier.

0 Replies

I don't think heartofthesun liked my posts. darn.

0 Replies

heartofthesun wrote: I am not sure that George Bush and the neo-cons are really burdened by the desire to maintain "proper global image", as you call it. The administration clearly did not care about it, when they went against world (and UN) consensus and attacked the sovereign nation of Iraq.

I remember those world-wide demonstrations by the millions, but Bush said he does't make decisions based on polls; that ignorant bastard! After 3.5 years, he still doesn't have a solution, and made terrorisim around the world much worse; his legacy as the worst US president. Bush supporters try to claim we haven't had any terrorist attack in the US since 9-11. Their brain is dead.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I don't think heartofthesun liked my posts. darn.

funny man.
debate and discussion - so self-indulgent, i feel like marie antionette. and sick to my stomach, too.

hey, 15 i used to be a fervent supporter of eugenics. but i was also 15, discovering genetics and quite disconnected from reality and responsibility...these days, i am little more burdened.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

heartofthesun wrote: I am not sure that George Bush and the neo-cons are really burdened by the desire to maintain "proper global image", as you call it. The administration clearly did not care about it, when they went against world (and UN) consensus and attacked the sovereign nation of Iraq.

I remember those world-wide demonstrations by the millions, but Bush said he does't make decisions based on polls; that ignorant bastard!

if you are a terrorist, why would you care abt the popular vote? george is guided by God - an imaginary, disorganized, inarticulate 'friend' in his head, and the promise of power. the hijackers were guided by God and the promise of nubile virgins. it's terrorism pitted against terrorism. terible 'strategery', in my opinion!

0 Replies

heartofthesun wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Obviously we differ on how to win wars.

again, why was a war waged with Iraq? how are the dots between 9/11 and iraq connected? and if it's terrorists that you are after, why not pakistan? saudi arabia?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq explains why war was waged with Iraq. Have you read it?

The governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do not fund terror groups and are working with us to rid their countries of terrorists. They may not be doing so in a timely manner acceptable to some, and I am sure Walter will post an article showing an example of this (providing another Waltism (tm)). We have no need at this time to provide military intervention in either country.

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:
The terrorists and insurgents use barbaric, brutal means to keep Iraq unstable.

But Saddam had managed to keep things held tight. So, what do you do? you oust Saddam without a plan to plug the hole he leaves behind?

Do you approve of the way Saddam "managed to keep things held tight"? I didn't. Was the post war plan flawed? sure it was. Our government thought the Iraqi people would be able to handle not living under a dictator and having a democratic government. Boy, were they wrong! Turns out too many Iraqi's are only interested in their personal power and killing their fellow Iraqi's.

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:
A massive strike, early in the insurgency, would have eliminated much of the strife that we are seeing now. We should have cut the head off every snake that popped it's head up, when it popped up.

over HALF A MILLION civilian Iraqi's lay dead post-US invasion. we can afford the luxury of argument and debate self-righteousness, affront, revenge, anger, disgust and morality. but the fact still remains: over HALF A MILLION civilian iraqi's lay dead post-US invasion. HALF A MILLION civilian IRAQI'S. like that 2 year old little boy that was accompanying his dad to a neighbourhood tea shop on Saturday morning. he had his head blown off.

half a million now? Huh. Those Iraqi insurgents and arab terrorists can sure build up a body count, huh? Perhaps if they put their efforts into building up their country instead of tearing it down we could have been out of there long ago. But, until they stop killing their fellow Iraqi's and terrorizing the populace, I see no way we can leave. We must inflict severe and immediate damage to those perpetrating those vile acts. WOuldn't you agree?

Quote:

McG is blood-thirsty in his attempt to seek revenge. wouldn't you know that the most powerful force is one's conscience?
had the US responded in a manner that was just and driven by conscience following 9/11, it would have represented what the founding fathers of this nation intended for the american spirit to be, and the world would have applauded. instead, it behaved like the representation of an incensed rabble, thirsty for blood.
the US has proved itself to be the largest terrorist nation on earth. it is reprehensible, in my opinion. and every day that passes, i feel the burden of death on my soul get heavier.

What exactly would you have had the US do following 9/11?

The US has proven itself to be weak in the face of terrorism and should we leave Iraq before it is stable nothing more then a paper tiger. Empowering the terrorists is not the way to defeat them and defeat them we must. If you see the US as a terrorist nation, I pity your blindness, but I will not change my view to calm your conscious.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know