I, personally, think it's funny as hell that Saddam is pretty much saying 'F*ck off' to this whole b

[insidersav.livejournal.com]

Anyway, Saddam is a bastard and thats funny.

Comments

you are so wrong

[choobie.livejournal.com]

"That is why he is a warlord, and Bush and Clinton are not. Just because you have a political view does not mean you have the right to define reality."

You realize that your political view invalidates your first sentence above?

I get it: We're the Good Guys, and can never be called warlord. But They are bad guys, so they can. Brilliant of you.

First of all: the UN is a fig leaf for US empire, and always has been. When the US wants something from the UN, it gets it. Bush has said repeatedly that if the UN doesn't approve a US action, then the UN is irrelevant and the US will act unilaterally, just like the recent Iraq invasion.

Turns out the US had fully infiltrated the UN inspection process. So can you blame a sovereign leader for turning away enemy operatives? Regime change in Iraq had been an openly-stated official goal throughout the Clinton-Gore administration. So if you think any action toward Iraq has been a "mistake" then you only prove that once again you are merely buying what they are selling you.

Apparently the US feels free to kill and maim and torture Iraqis as if they have no rights. So who is the warlord again?

I also suggest you look up the word warlord.

If you think that US presidents are constrained by the law, you are also syudiously ignoring reality - either that, or once again swallowing whole the BS that is fed to you in the for-profit media. US presidents MAKE the law as they see fit. They refuse to sign the Geneva accord concerning POWs, so that they can torture "lawfukky" - isn't "law" great!?

Law doesn't mean shit while people an occupied nation is being slaughtered and tortured en masse.

And as for "democray," the US has actively dismantled countless real or fledgling democracies when it was in the US's political interests to do so. And the US has actively supported regimes that are fiercely anti-democracatic. No mistakes about it.
http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/10/03/3d9bd77046009

Re: you are so wrong

[nacreousflaneur.livejournal.com]

Don't waste your time, psych0squirrel. choobie is living in a world of his own.

Re: you are so wrong

[choobie.livejournal.com]

Au contraire. My world is populated by all kinds of people who have something to back up what we say, unlike your world that is informed entirely by a corporate media that licks the ass of capitalism.

Re: you are so wrong

[psych0squirrel.livejournal.com]

I don't get my information from corporate media. I don't get it from political sites either.

Oh, this ought to be good

[choobie.livejournal.com]

Then, pray tell, WHERE do you get your reliable information?

(heaven forbid you get it from someone who is honest about how they feel about the information they pass on)

Re: Oh, this ought to be good

[psych0squirrel.livejournal.com]

From people who work in the federal government, or their children, economic classes and people who work at the world bank and their children as well, people who work in the private sector, and government contractors, human rights lawyers, people working with non-profits, low level people at the Pentagon. I'm social. It's also work culture, most of the stuff is classified but people still gossip about what isn't; it's bureaucrat culture and everyone thinks their boss is a moron! Where do you get your information? It strikes me as very biased, like you looked it all up yourself. It doesn't strike me that you have any primary sources. It is very unprofessional.

I've also talked to immigrants from all over the world, they just show up at my university and local coffee shop. I drink coffee. If you want to find out about what's going on in Africa, talk to an african!! If you want to get an idea of what arabs think how about 9/11 or the fiasco in Iraq, ask some muslims. Our Palistinians and Hilal groups worked together to put on a comedy show for peace in the middle east. These things are happening. If they aren't where you live, I am very sorry but the world is a lot more mixed then you imply, everyone has a different opinion.

Do you ever do anything but read political commentary?

Re: Oh, this ought to be good

[choobie.livejournal.com]

As a matter of fact, I talk to the same people that you do (I also drink coffee). Except children of federal employees - that's the only one you mentioned that I don't talk to. Economics classes confirm Marx very strongly, I've found.

Yes, I do plenty besides read commentary, like work and socialize, etc. It was interaction with a wide variety of people (including bosses) that led me to commentary in the first place.

I hope you realize that even primary sources are highly biased. Even when people hate their bosses, they often hold precisely the same worldview as them. I assume you know the deal.

Interesting that you would aboid corporate news outlets such as newspapers, TV news, radio, etc. Most people who hold your opinions subscribe regularly to such propaganda. I'm still not so certain that you avoid them. Your ideas parrot the corporate apologists exactly.

Re: Oh, this ought to be good

[psych0squirrel.livejournal.com]

Economics classes confirm every political position. I am not saying that I am right or you are wrong, or even if it matters. I am saying you are extremely biased and very unprofessional. In short. I can't take you seriously because you have not expressed any original opinions. Of course primary sources are biased. People have opinions. That's why you talk to people who don't agree with everything you say, otherwise it is just intellectual masturbation. It's not the material you are quoting that concerns me. It is that you are closed minded.

I have studied this stuff formally as well. I am getting an economic degree with a specialization in the development of economic infastructure (my electives), and their problems. The reason that I have some idea of the type of work they would be doing in Iraq is that it is that infastructure and NGO's is what I've studied, and while it is a war zone the anarchy makes it not so very different from the types of problems they would face in Africa- besides being entirely different because of the population and their past history. I am also aware of what they leave out of papers as much as they put in, I can read around them; I am aware of what audiances they are designed for.

So who do you consider the corporate apologists, you mean people who intend to get jobs? Who are professional? Who are able to compromise long enough to get anything accomplished? Who want to actually accomplish something in Iraq besides leaving it to colapse into anarchy while people pat themselves on the back over how they took down G.W. Bush? Certainly, keep Bush out of control- but I think we owe something to the people there at this point. I am not sure what- it just seems you only see the anti-bush side, not so much of anything else. Being moderate doesn't make someone a corporate appologist, it just means you are able to see both sides.

Re: Oh, this ought to be good

[choobie.livejournal.com]

I can see both sides. Which is why I think we owe it to Iraqis to quit the violent occupation. That would be a huge accomplishment, since the problem is not "civil war" or "anarchy" butrather the occupation that caused both of these things.

I work, have a BA, and will attend law school next year. I get in where I fit in, so to speak, and plan to make a living.

people are corporate apologists when they spout the entirely unoriginal viewpoints that you do, for example. I know my viewpoint is also unoriginal, but yours is even more typical (as well as paternalistic towards the brown people, etc).

Call me an asshole because I have an opinion I state unequivocally. I've equivocated endlessly and still change my viewpoint. sounds like you should open your mind more than me, though. at least I can admit I am biased. You honestly believe that you are unbiased. You are biased. Now you know. Online quibbling is the definition of mental masturbation. I hope you realize that. Think critically about yourself and your own opinions in the future. I do it a lot. You'll get used to it.

Just an opinion.

Re: Oh, this ought to be good

[psych0squirrel.livejournal.com]

Getting a BA or a Law degree doesn't make you smart all it means is you study very narrow subjects of expertise.

Re: Oh, this ought to be good

[choobie.livejournal.com]

You are entirely correct, for once.

Re: Oh, this ought to be good

[psych0squirrel.livejournal.com]

Actaully that's pretty amazing that we agree on something. :)

Re: Oh, this ought to be good

[choobie.livejournal.com]

I'm sure we agree on many more things than we disagree on.

Re: Oh, this ought to be good

[psych0squirrel.livejournal.com]

It depends. I'm more into pragmatism then idealism. I'm not really all that into protest culture since they tend to clog up the roads and it just seems more productive to go after legislature directly, if that's the problem. The politicians just ignore them anyway and so does the city for the most part, it just messes up people's commute. It is mostly seen as free training on the city's tab for kids who wish to go into politics later. The big protests. Those they notice. There just aren't that many of them, only one or two a generation.

Re: Oh, this ought to be good

[choobie.livejournal.com]

that's cute. you're like a cartoon of an iodeologue.

idealism is within pragmatism. There is an ideal the pragmatist strives for. your neat boxes are useless except for rationalizing a complex world you don't understand.

the landlords and bosses that get hanged and shot in every revolution think as you do. keep on keeping on!

Re: Oh, this ought to be good

[psych0squirrel.livejournal.com]

No. I'm just myself. There is a difference between theorists and people who actually do the ground work. If you are anti-government fine. It just doesn't matter what your ideaology is if you don't have a vote at the table. Political movements take years to materialize, generations. The people who make contemporary decisions work within the system. I'm not really into feeling morally superior it's just not my personality. If I choose to get involved with policy it would be directly.

Re: you are so wrong

[psych0squirrel.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I don't know why I bother. Actaully understanding how government works seems to be too much. I don't know if Choobie can take criticism, some sort of inferiority complex? I always find it creepy how some people can read books and just form no sort of opinions of their own. It's like arguing with a robot.

Re: you are so wrong

[lady-squirrel.livejournal.com]

You realize that your political view invalidates your first sentence above?

It's not a political belief it is a statement that if G.W. Bush did the same things here that Saddam Hussein thought he should be able to get away with, that we would scream bloody murder. It's called scandal. War is necessarily different then peace, and whether or not it was well advised to go into the country. We did. Now we have to fix it.

People are not being slaughtered and tortured en masse by us, they are in the middle of a civil war, and unfortunately we are the ones who got them into this mess where people who didn't like each other have to suddenly pick a government together, and they're mad at us for putting them into that situation- which is fair. Our government has probably engaged in some shady activities, towards people they think are terrorists, and well it's easy to make mistakes and I am sure they are making lots of them. There are different opinions in our government remember, as well as in Europe who are reluctantly helping us fix it. I don't think they should be doing that stuff in the first place and probably they should get called out for it; that doesn't mean that is their sole purpose there.

As for the UN it would perhaps have more legitimacy if politicians weren't political- however we have seldom found a cure for human nature. Granting seats to corrupt governments, such as in Africa, only means you have corrupt representatives who vote as a block. In this the institution betrays itself, and while a political solution would have been better I can understand their frustration as well. An institution is only as good as it's weakest members. If they are to be legitimate they need to reform themselves, as well as enforce their mandates. The UN had been calling for Iraq to allow inspectors into his country as he was threatening his neighbors, they didn't enforce it. Remember this didn't start with us only- Saddam didn't take them seriously either, nor does anyone else if it isn't convenient.

Legislation is only as strong as it's weakest components. If people aren't interested in Democracy they are not represented, the people who vote most consistently tend to get more representation. That's just how the politicians work, they will of course get away with whatever they are able to but they are not all powerful. If people actually took an interest in self-rule they would get more of it. Besides, the US government is not a country designed to be a world democracy, it is a country where only voting citizen's are represented, or people who can advertise to voting citizen blocks. Sometimes politics is selfish and hypocritical, that doesn't mean that the most interested interests are not being represented, that it is not a democracy.

These are not value judgements- I just felt you should know more about the world you live in. I'm a lot more pragmatic then you are, politics is not always about morality it's about passing laws that are good and take us forward rather then complaining the world isn't perfect.

The White Man's Burden

[choobie.livejournal.com]

"War is necessarily different then peace, and whether or not it was well advised to go into the country. We did. Now we have to fix it."

You are so right. Brown people are simply incapable of governing their own affairs. I wish the US had a foreign government to invade and occupy us during OUR civil war. Don't you think that would have improved things? That would have SO improved our self-determination at that critical point, don;t you think?

"People are not being slaughtered and tortured en masse by us"

Yes they are. Iraqi people. Abu Ghraib continues in several otehr locations, including Abu Ghraib again. Approximately 100,000 Iraqis have been killed, over 80% of these fatal casualties caused by the Coalition forces.

"I'm a lot more pragmatic then you are"

I see that. It IS pragmatic for Good Americans to ignore non-Americans and what happens beyond our borders, even within our borders. Doesn't concern you - I get it. Good Germans were very similar. Way to ignore morality. Way to keep morality out of politics. Way to keep the status quo. We all make choices: I see you made yours. It's all about choices. I'll try to keep my complaining to a minimum - for your benefit.

It's good that you admit the US got Iraq into their current hell. The US supported Saddam even before he was leader. The US invaded and occupied. But it's too bad that you can't make the logical leap: IT IS US MEDDLING THAT HARMS OTHER SOVEREIGN NATIONS.

As long as the US "tries to fix its mistakes" (which is not at all the case but how current US imperialism sells itself to the gullible masses at home), then it will be digging a deeper hole in Iraq. And killing civilians is not "a mistake" as you keep naively referring to the intentional policies of the US. When the US bombs a major metropolis, you can;t call killing women and children "a mistake" can you? When justifiably scared US soldiers get shot at, then spray the entire street and everyone in it full of bullets, do you also call that a lil oopsie, or is that standard operating procedure to survive as an occupying force amongst a justifiably mutinous population?

You ARE pragmatic in that it is more beneficial to Americans to keep their heads in the sand, stay the course, think the best of the morality and intentions of the most powerful government the world has ever seen.

Power corrupting? Heavens no; that never happens! How pragmatic: an utterly childish trust in (only your) state. Kind of like "Daddy hits Mommy a lot but he meant well and it was a mistake, even though Daddy still does it."

Please explain how an occupied country is democratic.

And provide the non-corporate and "non-political" sources you get your information from.