[the ikara cult]

I had to take a few days off reading this thread due to the sluggish flood of bollocks that followed the points I made. But if any of you have made a point against me in the meantime (which im sure you have) I cant be arsed to read it, and so I think i have to refer you to my last comments in this thread as i think i put it fairly concisely there. Puh.

[Lurker]

What I find annoying is people not listening to what I actually say.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Lurker

What I find annoying is people not listening to what I actually say.

Welcome to the Internet!

[ni'k]

[quote=the ikara cult][quote=ni'k]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

Hi Nik
The country would not be stable and secure under Saddam or his sons, and whilst the numbers of the dead are disputed as to whether they run into the millions, its still a lot of people and I dont play that down even if it is less than that.

My point is what happens if Saddam stays in power? Sanctions were pointless and had no effect, the populus was under the control of a dictatorship and the effects were passed on to iraqis on the street. If he had been removed in 1991, this would not have happened for a decade. And if he hadnt been removed in 2003, it would still be going on today and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children would have been dying just to ensure the dictator stayed in power. If the sanctions had been lifted, they would have been used to acquire WMD. Let me know if you need more info on this particular point.

On your 2 points
1. They never had control over their countrys resources before, and so youre right they should do now. If youre arguing against the war it would mean the resources remained in the hands of saddam. At least now we can pressure the US to make sure the Iraqis dont get ripped off (which we should)

2. Why do you assume Iraqis will not vote for a "candidate hostile to US interests"? What if they vote for someone like, say, Ahmed Chalabi, who is and was an Iraqi and fought against Saddam?

Even his Wiki entry shows his hostilities with the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_C...U.S..2C_2004-5

first of all the people were suffering because of the sanctions imposed by the US and others which were effectively starving them for a decade. the US could have stopped these sanctions but it did not. clinton could have but he did not.

your point about voting is moot because if the US does not approve of the candidate the iraqis vote for that candidate will not win. the elections are totally rigged and everyone knows it.
and that thing about the WMD's is bullshit, they never had them and it's just speculation to say they would have wanted to get them. and that is not a sound reason to go to war. what you are saying seems to ignore logic, you speculate that if saddam had not been removed hundreds of thousands of children would be dying of poverty (this was poverty was due to US sanctions not saddam) - but the war has killed over a million! you can't be saying that it's better that a million died instead of hundreds of thousands so you must be just ignoring the death toll of the invasion, not to mention the destruction, havoc and poisoning due to chemical weapons use.

and of course they should be let control their own resources but we both know they won't. and putting political pressure on the US government won't work since it is coorporations who are taking the oil, and they just won't listen.

i have no idea why you are touting the merits of chalabi, a neo con shill involved in falsifying the intelligence that led to war. and anyway, we both know the elections are rigged and the US backed candidate who will do what he is told will win.

i am obviously not defending dictatorship, you seem to be defending killing over a million innocents just to remove one dictator which is unacceptable. your argumentation is abhorrent.

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

This may be of some interest to those in or around London this Friday that're interested in any of this stuff:

NuBureaucracy and Capitalist Realism

2-4pm
12th February 2010
Council Room
Laurie Grove Baths
Centre for Cultural Studies
Goldsmiths

Neoliberalism presents itself as the enemy of bureaucracy, the destroyer of the nanny state and the eliminator of red tape. Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism (Zer0 books, 2009) argues that, contrary to this widely accepted story, bureaucracy has proliferated under neoliberalism. Far from decreasing, bureaucracy has changed form, spreading all the more insidiously in its newly decentralised mode. This 'nu-bureaucracy' is often carried out by workers themselves, now induced into being their own auditors. Capitalist Realism aims to challenge the successful ideological doublethink in which workers' experience of increasing bureaucratisation co-exists with the idea that bureaucracy belongs to a 'Stalinist' past.


This symposium will explore nu-bureaucracy and other related concepts developed in Capitalist Realism, such as 'business ontology' and 'market Stalinism'. How has nu-bureaucracy affected education and public services, and how can it be resisted? What implications might the attack on nu-bureaucracy have for a renewed anti-capitalism?


Respondent, Alberto Toscano, Department of Sociology

Thanks. I'm likely to be out of town this weekend. You should come to some of the meeting at Conway Hall, if you get the time.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by ni'k

edit

edit

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

Welcome to the Internet!

It does worry me. If the people who are reasonably well educated and knowledgeable people can be this stupid what about the rest...

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

I had to take a few days off reading this thread due to the sluggish flood of bollocks that followed the points I made. But if any of you have made a point against me in the meantime (which im sure you have) I cant be arsed to read it, and so I think i have to refer you to my last comments in this thread as i think i put it fairly concisely there. Puh.

perhaps if your perspective was not so literally stupid.. I'm sorry but I can accept arguments against Saddam and his Iraq, but NOTHING could EVER support, justify or exhonorate this BULLSHIT WAR PERIOD. This is why no one is hearing you, cuz you keep spouting utter nonsense..
its nothing personal Ikara Cult, I am quite fond of you on this board, but in this regard, I got to speak the real.

Originally Posted by ni'k

i am obviously not defending dictatorship, you seem to be defending killing over a million innocents just to remove one dictator which is unacceptable. your argumentation is abhorrent.

amen.

[the ikara cult]

[quote=ni'k][quote=the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by ni'k

first of all the people were suffering because of the sanctions imposed by the US and others which were effectively starving them for a decade. the US could have stopped these sanctions but it did not. clinton could have but he did not.

your point about voting is moot because if the US does not approve of the candidate the iraqis vote for that candidate will not win. the elections are totally rigged and everyone knows it.
and that thing about the WMD's is bullshit, they never had them and it's just speculation to say they would have wanted to get them. and that is not a sound reason to go to war. what you are saying seems to ignore logic, you speculate that if saddam had not been removed hundreds of thousands of children would be dying of poverty (this was poverty was due to US sanctions not saddam) - but the war has killed over a million! you can't be saying that it's better that a million died instead of hundreds of thousands so you must be just ignoring the death toll of the invasion, not to mention the destruction, havoc and poisoning due to chemical weapons use.

and of course they should be let control their own resources but we both know they won't. and putting political pressure on the US government won't work since it is coorporations who are taking the oil, and they just won't listen.

i have no idea why you are touting the merits of chalabi, a neo con shill involved in falsifying the intelligence that led to war. and anyway, we both know the elections are rigged and the US backed candidate who will do what he is told will win.

i am obviously not defending dictatorship, you seem to be defending killing over a million innocents just to remove one dictator which is unacceptable. your argumentation is abhorrent.

Nice to see youve decided to make your point in front of other people now rather than resorting to the BigMans world of NEGREP! If you have confidence in your point, dont just say it to me after i challenge you on it in private, is that alright by you? Or are you the slab of nothing you appear to be 100% of the time?

Ok, the points you made there are best argued by what ive already written to be honest. You whined about the Iraqis only being able to elect US-bitches, and the second i point out someone who is an elected Iraqi who fought Saddam and made Iraq a nation that might just succeed. you have nothing to say about him besides what i referred you to. Youve stated your ignorance right there. Go back to bed.

[Genteel Death]

Suchfriends- if that particular war should not be justified, in your opinion, which wars do you think have enough of a good reason to be justified?
I'm only asking because if you follow that line of thought all wars have the potential of being unjustified and randomly waged at the expenses of the attacking country's economy, since wars cost a heck of a lot of money, and can wipe off easily your administration's domain in a future election.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

perhaps if your perspective was not so literally stupid.. I'm sorry but I can accept arguments against Saddam and his Iraq, but NOTHING could EVER support, justify or exhonorate this BULLSHIT WAR PERIOD. This is why no one is hearing you, cuz you keep spouting utter nonsense..
its nothing personal Ikara Cult, I am quite fond of you on this board, but in this regard, I got to speak the real.

amen.

I know its not personal SFD, dont worry about upsetting me. Im fond of you above most of these other characters too because you take the time to explain your point, even though i disagree with you.

My point is that arguements against Saddam have to extend to arguements about regime change in that country. Ive outlined my reasons for this already in this thread, if you disagree then fine, but you do have to answer what would have happened if we had left him in power in 2003?

The mismanagement of the aftermath - 100% a disaster. But attacking Saddams regime was justified.

[ni'k]

[quote=the ikara cult][quote=ni'k]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

Nice to see youve decided to make your point in front of other people now rather than resorting to the BigMans world of NEGREP! If you have confidence in your point, dont just say it to me after i challenge you on it in private, is that alright by you? Or are you the slab of nothing you appear to be 100% of the time?

Ok, the points you made there are best argued by what ive already written to be honest. You whined about the Iraqis only being able to elect US-bitches, and the second i point out someone who is an elected Iraqi who fought Saddam and made Iraq a nation that might just succeed. you have nothing to say about him besides what i referred you to. Youve stated your ignorance right there. Go back to bed.

i thought you wanted to stop personal attacks, is that not what you said in your message? why do you have a problem with me posting what you said in public? is it because you know your arguments do not stand up and can't accept it? and i have already refuted those points. what do you mean that i have nothing to say about chalabi other than the page you referred? he was involved in faking the intelligence used to justify the war! chalabi DID NOT make iraq a nation that just might succeed. look at the page you linked to.

you said you had no interest in personal attacks, but since you have fallen back on them now in order to cover for yourself, yes i'm whining and nothing and a pussy and need to go to bed, these comments wouldn't get to me anyway, but coming from someone who is defending genocide they ring especially hollow.

you don't seem able to accept the reality that the US couldn't give a shit about saddam being a dictator or not, and that was just a neo con talking point. you're desperately clinging to this. as myself and others have already said, if saddam had stayed in power then THE MILLION DEAD WOULD STILL BE ALIVE. the country would have its infastructure intact, it would have stability instead of having descended into the warring factional chaos it is in now. of course the US sanctions would still be starving the people, but you seem to ignore this and try to blame it on saddam.

[the ikara cult]

[quote=ni'k][quote=the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by ni'k

i thought you wanted to stop personal attacks, is that not what you said in your message? why do you have a problem with me posting what you said in public? is it because you know your arguments do not stand up and can't accept it? and i have already refuted those points. what do you mean that i have nothing to say about chalabi other than the page you referred? he was involved in faking the intelligence used to justify the war! chalabi DID NOT make iraq a nation that just might succeed. look at the page you linked to.

you said you had no interest in personal attacks, but since you have fallen back on them now in order to cover for yourself, might i suggest you reconsider your defense of genocide.

Its because you responded to me firstly in private - rather than responding to my point in front of everyone else you went the neg-rep route. I responded to you with a private message, then you brought that private message out into this thread. Therefore I dont respect anything you have to say on this matter because you are a pussy. Night Night

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

Suchfriends- if that particular war should not be justified, in your opinion, which wars do you think have enough of a good reason to be justified?
I'm only asking because if you follow that line of thought all wars have the potential of being unjustified and randomly waged at the expenses of the attacking country's economy, since wars cost a heck of a lot of money, and can wipe off easily your administration's domain in a future election.

war is NEVER justified. until folk understand that in the core of the being, then we will have these arguments, and in truth, people getting into arguments like these are the very precursors to wars in the first place!

I-man live dedicated to peace. Even when outright defending yourself, war is messy, because what justifies killing innocent people in another country because the assholes who run it did something do another? Are Iraqis justified in suicide bombing my neighborhood because my country is at war with theirs, even though I am not in favor of the war? This is the kind of tricky situation war presents, when you wage war against somebody, you are inherently going to hurt innocents, it being unavoidable, then in fact war is unjustifiable.

As long as war is considered an option, then it will always become the only option, just like as long as you have a gun, in truth you are not likely to get into a fist fight, but in an altercation whether you planned it or not somebody is probably going to get shot.. war is the same. get rid of the option of war, and new solutions to our problems will naturally present themselves..

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

My point is that arguements against Saddam have to extend to arguements about regime change in that country. Ive outlined my reasons for this already in this thread, if you disagree then fine, but you do have to answer what would have happened if we had left him in power in 2003?

there are many many alternatives to military invasion and occupation to encourage a regime change, and as ni'k already said, the ends by no means justify the means. Killing a shit load of Iraqis and utterly DESTROYING the government, economy and normality of their nation is not a viable alternative to Saddam, as bad ass a mofo as he was

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

war is NEVER justified. until folk understand that in the core of the being, then we will have these arguments, and in truth, people getting into arguments like these are the very precursors to wars in the first place!


As long as war is considered an option, then it will always become the only option, just like as long as you have a gun, in truth you are not likely to get into a fist fight, but in an altercation whether you planned it or not somebody is probably going to get shot.. war is the same. get rid of the option of war, and new solutions to our problems will naturally present themselves..


there are many many alternatives to military invasion and occupation to encourage a regime change, and as ni'k already said, the ends by no means justify the means. Killing a shit load of Iraqis and utterly DESTROYING the government, economy and normality of their nation is not a viable alternative to Saddam, as bad ass a mofo as he was

I would honestly love it if your conception of humanity were true, but we have a responsibility to thhe people who are opressed by totalitarian idiologies. War IS right if someone declares war on you or the people you support. That doesnt have to mean military action right away but it should at least mean support for our liberal friends abroad.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

This is the kind of tricky situation war presents, when you wage war against somebody, you are inherently going to hurt innocents, it being unavoidable, then in fact war is unjustifiable.

War is absolutely justified if the number of innocents killed during it is far less than would be likely had it not taken place. Or if it involves the French.

[Genteel Death]

Then again, to think that waging a war purely to protect what are conflicting ideas of liberal thinking is as far removed from its real purpose as suchfriends' nice, but ultimately upractical feelings. The war in Iraq has also affected humanly and economically the lives of people whose social extraction is similar to many a western family of comfortable wealth and political leanings, who then found themselves abandoned, hunted down by local militias, and confused by the messages the invading western countries used to explain their bellicose entrance, so to reduce this particular war to a mere democratic crusade seems way to simplistic.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

Then again, to think that waging a war purely to protect what are conflicting ideas of liberal thinking is as far removed from its real purpose as suchfriends' nice, but ultimately upractical feelings. The war in Iraq has also affected humanly and economically the lives of people whose social extraction is similar to many a western family of comfortable wealth and political leanings, who then found themselves abandoned, hunted down by local militias, and confused by the messages the invading western countries used to explain their bellicose entrance, so to reduce this particular war to a mere democratic crusade seems way to simplistic.

I dont like having to disagree with the sweet natured types like yourself and Suchfriends, its so much easier when Nik or TnB have a go at me. If you want to talk about the effects of the "intervention" - as a PR type would call it, you then cant ignore the iraqis who rejoiced at the removal of saddam. Its easy to sneer at them if you hate bush and blair behind the safe screen of not having to explain yourself, but they are real people.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

Then again, to think that waging a war purely to protect what are conflicting ideas of liberal thinking is as far removed from its real purpose as suchfriends' nice, but ultimately upractical feelings.

absolutely. while i do genuinely think that Blair was motivated by that very thing, I don't think the war as a whole was.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

absolutely. while i do genuinely think that Blair was motivated by that very thing, I don't think the war as a whole was.

fair enough, but whether you think the war was right or not, you should support the Kurds. They could have rejected an Iraqi state, seeing as it had been responsible for their genocide in the past. But they didnt. The largest group pf people in the world without a state of their own.

http://www.kukfa.org/index-e.html