Corporate Feudalism and The Culture War

[Joe DeFuria]

Yes, but you're not the president so you have absolutely no basis to make such an assumption about Bush invading Iraq.

Close but wrong. Read above.

 

[Natoma]

Yeah, mortgages and car loans are "good" because there is tangible value behind the loan: namely, the car and the house. Even if you default on the loan, you still have the property to "repay" it.

Educational loans are good, because presumably you will have a degree to show for it, which makes you more marketable for a job.

I don't consider having a shool loan debt, with no diploma (tangible value) to show for it, "good debt."

Fico disagrees with you.

Look I'm not going to get into this because you're just flame baiting frankly. It's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't want to pick an argument what the circumstances were at the time.

Eh? You brought it up, not me. If you're not willing to discuss the "urgency" which caused financial hardship for you, then don't bring it up.

No, you're completely twisting it around and trying to make some typical defuria semantical argument. That's why I'm not discussing it with you on the terms you're trying to lay out.

It was no more unnecessary than your coming out.

As a heterosexual man you have absolutely no basis to make such an assertion.

Cop out, though expected.

I have as much basis for making that assertion as you have, (not being dead from 9-11, or not knowing the status of Sadam's weapons program), to assert the war on Iraq was not "necessary."

Do you really? We went to war because of WMD and Terrorist Ties. Did either of those exist in Iraq when we went in? Apparently not. That much is fact and is known to everyone, some before others. And I didn't know the state of Saddam's weapons, or at least suspect? Heh. Vince and I had long debates on the status of Saddam's weapons before we went to war, where I pointed out problems I had with the intelligence that was used in going to war, such as the Niger claim. What did I say at the time? We should slow down, because it seems that this intelligence hasn't been fully vetted. And what has come out after the war? Just what I suspected from a few minutes of googling and reading news reports. That our intelligence was in fact not fully vetted.

As a heterosexual man, you have no basis to make any claims about the necessity of coming out, no facts to cull from. Why? Because you never had to hide your sexual identity and experience what that's like. So yea, like I said, you're just fishing for arguments to make just to argue.

 

[Natoma]

As a heterosexual man you have absolutely no basis to make such an assertion.

Yes, but you're not the president so you have absolutely no basis to make such an assumption about Bush invading Iraq. You know, you being honest with yourself, family, and friends and our president's administration forming the OSP to work outside our intelligence community's standard practices of gathering and interpreting data to justify taking out a secular leader under the ideological banner of fighting religious extremists. It's all the same.

Just thought I'd pre-empt here. 8)

Too late.

 

[PatrickL]

Seriously you americans are still thinking the war in iraq was justified based on the information given before the war?
Despite no wmd, no cruise missiles with a "10 mn delay for launch", no chemical or other weapons were found by your own army ?

 

[John Reynolds]

Seriously you americans are still thinking the war in iraq was justified based on the information given before the war?
Despite no wmd, no cruise missiles with a "10 mn delay for launch", no chemical or other weapons were found by your own army ?

Oh, the tune being whistled has changed from irresponsible rhetoric regarding WMD and terrorist links to removing a bad man from power. We're giving the Iraqi people freedom and a taste of liberty, American Imperial-style. Of course the hypocrisy of that is that we ignored worse men who pose significantly larger threats to world peace, but let's brush that under the table. Don't you know there's a war going on? And when America engages in a new ideological war, logic, facts, and common sense get thrown out the window (cough, war on drugs, cough).

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Fico disagrees with you.

So, what's your point? You're telling me it's "good" to go into huge debt with nothing to show for it?

No, you're completely twisting it around and trying to make some typical defuria semantical argument.

Oh, I'd love to see the logic behind this. I haven't made any type of argument at all yet, though I will below.

That's why I'm not discussing it with you on the terms you're trying to lay out.

You're not discussing it because you're afraid of being exposed as being hypocritical and/or inconsistent, as usual.

Do you really? We went to war because of WMD and Terrorist Ties.

Yup, because we could not ascertain the WMD with any degree of certainty in Iraq, nor was there any indication that we would, as long as Sadam was in power..

As a heterosexual man, you have no basis to make any claims about the necessity of coming out, no facts to cull from. Why? Because you never had to hide your sexual identity and experience what that's like. So yea, like I said, you're just fishing for arguments to make just to argue.

No, Natoma. You are completely missing the point, which isn't surprising since, you're not willing to "discuss it" with me. But keep your head burried in the sand.

Hint: there is some reason, whatever that may be, why you felt compelled to come out when you did. Looking back, you may or may not believe it was actually the right time. Maybe you think you should have come out earlier, maybe you think if you waited a little longer, things wouldn't have been so rough. I don't know...and the "reason" why you came out when you did is irrelevant, which is why my not being a homosexual or understanding that reason is also irrelevant.. I'm not passing any judgement on that reason, whatever it may be, other than to say that coming out at that particular time was not the only option you had. Certainly, something at that time in your life pushed you past the point of "well, I've drawn the line at this time."

The point is, the same can be said for the war in Iraq. Those somethings are:

1) 9-11. (Recongizing the possible consequences of inaction.)
2) Lack of the ability to ascertain Iraq's weapons program, and the lack of any faith in Sadam's regime that the situation would change anytime soon..

You may disagree that those "somethings" are reason enough to push us over the line to remove Sadam as our "only option." But I can't see how anyone can't understand the reasoning behind it. I may or may not agree with whatever reason you have for coming out at that time you did and made it the "only option for you", but I'll bet I would understand why you did it.

 

[Natoma]

Fico disagrees with you.

So, what's your point? You're telling me it's "good" to go into huge debt with nothing to show for it?

You think I have nothing to show for my 3 years in college. We disagree.

No, you're completely twisting it around and trying to make some typical defuria semantical argument. That's why I'm not discussing it with you on the terms you're trying to lay out.

Oh, I'd love to see the logic behind this. I haven't made any type of argument at all yet, though I will below. You're not discussing it because you're afraid of being exposed as being hypocritical and/or inconsistent, as usual.

Yes, I read your responses below. And as I said, you're twisting things. I saw it coming because you do the same thing everytime you post.

Do you really? We went to war because of WMD and Terrorist Ties.

Yup, because we could not ascertain the WMD with any degree of certainty in Iraq, nor was there any indication that we would, as long as Sadam was in power..

Yet another Joe Defuria line-item way of posting. Delete the response to the rebuttal and bring it up again as if it was never said. Yeesh.

Do you really? We went to war because of WMD and Terrorist Ties. Did either of those exist in Iraq when we went in? Apparently not. That much is fact and is known to everyone, some before others. And I didn't know the state of Saddam's weapons, or at least suspect? Heh. Vince and I had long debates on the status of Saddam's weapons before we went to war, where I pointed out problems I had with the intelligence that was used in going to war, such as the Niger claim. What did I say at the time? We should slow down, because it seems that this intelligence hasn't been fully vetted. And what has come out after the war? Just what I suspected from a few minutes of googling and reading news reports. That our intelligence was in fact not fully vetted.

1) 9-11. (Recongizing the possible consequences of inaction.)
2) Lack of the ability to ascertain Iraq's weapons program, and the lack of any faith in Sadam's regime that the situation would change anytime soon..

1) Nothing to do with Saddam
2) Relying on shoddy intelligence and organizations to filter intelligence to your liking (OSP) is just as damaging.[/code]

 

[Natoma]

Seriously you americans are still thinking the war in iraq was justified based on the information given before the war?
Despite no wmd, no cruise missiles with a "10 mn delay for launch", no chemical or other weapons were found by your own army ?

Sorry PatrickL. You'd have to find people that actually believe in holding to the reasons a war was started in the first place rather than switching them to something else when it's convenient.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You think I have nothing to show for my 3 years in college. We disagree.

No, you have nothing "tanigble" (degree) to show for your 3 years of college...that you coudn't have gotten without spending all that money and taking a loan. You could even just sit in on classes, spent time reading books, getting "on the job" experience. You could get whatever "value" you got from attending college in other ways, than taking huge loans.

Yes, I read your responses below. And as I said, you're twisting things. I saw it coming because you do the same thing everytime you post.

Yet another Joe Defuria line-item way of posting. Delete the response to the rebuttal and bring it up again as if it was never said. Yeesh.

Natoma, the "response to the rebuttle" is not a response. The REASON that we are now able to ascertain / believe there was no actual WMD , is because we were able to remove Sadam from power, so we could get in there unfettered.

1) Nothing to do with Saddam

Everything to do with a mad-man who has WMD status that we cannot ascertain. THE WORLD agreed at the time (see truckloads of UN resolutions) that without knowing the WMD status, he was a threat. The only disagreement was what to do about it.

For the U.S., Sadam crossed the line (not meeting resoultion 1441) that lead us to the "only choice." Just as whatever it is in your life made "coming out" the only choice for you given your situation, and ascertaining of the potential consequences of "inaction" at the time.

2) Relying on shoddy intelligence and organizations to filter intelligence to your liking (OSP) is just as damaging.

See above. I guess "the world's" intelligence was shoddy.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Sorry PatrickL. You'd have to find people that actually believe in holding to the reasons a war was started in the first place rather than switching them to something else when it's convenient.

Sorry Natoma,

If you care to check, I have never changed my position on the reason for going to war. After the war officially started, I am on record saying that whether or not we actually find WMD is irrelevant to the justification (for or against) for going in.

Try again.

 

[Natoma]

I wasn't talking about you. But it doesn't matter anyway. I can see why you're such a big supporter of Bush and his administration's policies. Both of you see the world in unflinching black and white terms with no regard to reality whatsoever.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I wasn't talking about you.

Odd...you said:

Sorry PatrickL. You'd have to find people that actually believe in holding to the reasons a war was started in the first place rather than switching them to something else when it's convenient.

Why would you say such a thing when there's someone in this very thread that meets the criteria of who patrick "should be looking for?"

There's no need for him to look anywhere than right here. So your "problem" was solved before you even stated it. Strange way to present a problem, there, Natoma.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I wasn't talking about you. But it doesn't matter anyway. I can see why you're such a big supporter of Bush and his administration's policies. Both of you see the world in unflinching black and white terms with no regard to reality whatsoever.

I'm not the one who can't understand and accept the opposing point of view as valid (even if you disagree with it) here, Natoma...that would be you.

 

[Druga Runda]

The point is, the same can be said for the war in Iraq. Those somethings are:

1) 9-11. (Recongizing the possible consequences of inaction.)
2) Lack of the ability to ascertain Iraq's weapons program, and the lack of any faith in Sadam's regime that the situation would change anytime soon..

You may disagree that those "somethings" are reason enough to push us over the line to remove Sadam as our "only option." But I can't see how anyone can't understand the reasoning behind it. I may or may not agree with whatever reason you have for coming out at that time you did and made it the "only option for you", but I'll bet I would understand why you did it.

yes these were the reasons, hopefully... but we were not told these are the reasons:

We were tolda that the reasons is >existence< confirmed of WMD, not "there might be some"

while >1< is correct
>2< has nothing with what the officials were saying.

there are many other options to be more valid reasons, ie neo-cons were preparing for Iraq invasion befor 9-11 and it just proved to be a good platform to exploiot.

Neocons might have had other reasons for Invading Iraq - ie making sure they have a full say in one ME country, and not to risk being thrown out of the region full of unfriendly regimes (let's say that Saudis get toppled after US army left post 9-11) etc... so there migh be many "reasons". The point is that current administration wants to exercise undue influence over certain parts of the world... and it presents it at the moment as the war on terror.

The problem with this kind of thinking is: War on terror - good
current means of fighting it - disaster. However noone mentiones that or discusses it directly, the way we are fighting this war at the moment is totally counter productive.

That is the problem. So whatever reasons might be, all fine and well, but murderers have their reasons for commiting crime which doesn't make it right. Lying about stuff to make people believe and justify your actions just shows you in what kind of administration you put your trust in, and to whom you believe to lead you to peace and prosperity.

ie if Natoma told you why he 'came out'; it might be the truth or a lie, and pretty much you have no way of figuring out apart from trusting in his integrity that he told you the truth. Luckily the government is not just 1 man, and we have plenty of reasons to see that they lied with their "reasons" for war. namely your reason #2 is a good example of switching reasons after the act was done. And furthermore you might have said " that whether or not we actually find WMD is irrelevant to the justification for going in. " however this is not what your government was originally saying which is actually relevant.

If the President presented your (their current) reasoning at the beginning we might have not gone to war afterall.

 

[Natoma]

When it comes to matter of life and death, i.e. war? I certainly can't validate any reason that isn't mired in truth or substantiated fact. I don't support pre-emptive wars based on bad intelligence and apprently no wish to vet that intelligence. Apparently you do, and I do not find that in any way tenable when it comes at the price of 500+ american lives, thousands more wounded, and thousands of Iraqis dead or wounded. I work from the premise that war is the last resort, to be avoided at all cost if necessary. That if you're going to go to war, you better have rock solid evidence for doing so.

And btw, PatrickL's comment was "Seriously you americans are still thinking the war in iraq was justified based on the information given before the war? Despite no wmd, no cruise missiles with a "10 mn delay for launch", no chemical or other weapons were found by your own army ?"

Now when did you ever say that you were basing your opinions on the intelligence given before going to war? So how could I have been talking about you?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If you care to check, I have never changed my position on the reason for going to war. After the war officially started, I am on record saying that whether or not we actually find WMD is irrelevant to the justification (for or against) for going in.

Just in case there are any doubts:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6132&start=65

We don't need "time" to tell everyone that the UN Security Counsel unamimously believed and understood Iraq to have WMD. History tells us that....by virture of the fact that Iraq could not acceptably account for them by anyone's standard. (See UN resolution 1441).

Despite the left's rhetoric, whether or not we do find them has no bearing on the justification of the war. Whetever your feeling on the justification of the war (for or against), actually FINDING the WMD shouldn't change anything. If you think the war wasn't justified, finding WMD shouldn't change your view.

We went to war because EVERYONE, those both pro and anti-war, agreed that Iraq was not forthcoming about their WMD. There was never any disagreement, not with the U.N., the former Clinton Administration, or this administration, that IRAQ "had weapons of mass destruction."

The only disagreement was what to do about it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

yes these were the reasons, hopefully... but we were not told these are the reasons:

Yes, we were.

We were tolda that the reasons is >existence< confirmed of WMD, not "there might be some"

Sort of. We were were told that to the best of our (the World's collective) knowledge, he HAD WMD. This was the agreed upon, official world view, until Sadam could show us otherwise. There were "lists" of WMD that Sadam was known / agreed to have, based on prior inspections or official Iraqi declarations.

There was SOME other intelligence (U.S. / UK) that purported to identify other potential WMD items they possessed.

there are many other options to be more valid reasons, ie neo-cons were preparing for Iraq invasion befor 9-11 and it just proved to be a good platform to exploiot.

I don't see that as a "valid reason", just a kook conspiracy theory.

The problem with this kind of thinking is: War on terror - good
current means of fighting it - disaster. However noone mentiones that or discusses it directly, the way we are fighting this war at the moment is totally counter productive.

It's really hard to say. We simply can't know if there would have been "more terrorist attacks in the past and future" had we not taken the courses we did.

ie if Natoma told you why he 'came out' it might be the truth or a lie, and pretty much you have no way of figuring out apart from trusting in his integrity that he told you the truth.

True. The thing is, everyone in the world agreed that Sadam was a threat, and that his WMD program was in an "unascertained" status. Again, the only disagreement was on course of action.

I am of the opinion, that had we not gone in, we would still trying to be figuring that out today, and that is unacceptable to me in the post 9-11 climate.

 

[PatrickL]

Joe de Furia wrote:

The REASON that we are now able to ascertain / believe there was no actual WMD , is because we were able to remove Sadam from power, so we could get in there unfettered

You know that it is false. We knew that before going to war ant that the reason (depiste all the bs your propaganda machine spread out) Russia France Germany did not want to go.

In 1991 war was justified, in afghanistan too and in both cases theses countries went to war but you are fast to forget.

Do you think you will make a rule for your foreign politics to invade all country you decide to inspect?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

When it comes to matter of life and death, i.e. war? I certainly can't validate any reason that isn't mired in truth or substantiated fact.

Which of these is not facts:

1) The World agreed that as long as Sadam's WMD program was not properly ascertained, he was a threat.

2) At the time we went to war, is WMD program was not ascertained with any degree of certainty

I don't support pre-emptive wars based on bad intelligence and apprently no wish to vet that intelligence. Apparently you do...

I don't consider world agreement on the threat and agreement on the lack of ability to ascertain Sadam's regime for 12 years not "vetting" of intelligence.

I work from the premise that war is the last resort, to be avoided at all cost if necessary.

So do I.

As I said, and you again fail to appreciate this because of your lack of willingness to discuss your "coming out", we just differ on when it becomes or became "necessary."

 

[Natoma]

If the President presented your (their current) reasoning at the beginning we might have not gone to war afterall.

Precisely. Before we were on the definitive path to war, the majority of Americans polled by various sources that I linked to in my discussions with Vince and Russ on these matters, wished to give the weapons inspectors more time to find WMD in order to avert a war. The reason why the public opinion shifted heavily just before the war was because we made it clear about 2 weeks beforehand that we were going in regardless of the UN inspection process, i.e., the public circled the wagons and supported the troops.

This mealy-mouthed reasoning of "well he was a bad man who could possibly hurt us, but we have no hard evidence of it" would not have sold the american public imo, given the opinions about the war during the weapons inspection process. You also have much dissent today regarding the costs of the war in lives and money, not just in democratic circles, but in some moderate republican and independent circles as well. Is it coincidence that the Administration would not give a hard figure on the costs of the war, and when Larry Lindsay said that he believed it'd probably cost $200 Billion or so by the time it was over, he was canned shortly thereafter?

Pre-emption doesn't work when intelligence is bad, and the drive to inspect that intelligence before acting on it doesn't seem to exist.