Saddam Arrested
- Thread starter V3
- Start date
Yea I've read some news reports on that tuna. It remains to be seen whether this is true or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is true that the kurds had saddam for a few days to a few weeks, and gave our boys his whereabouts, drugged and in a hole, ready to be found.
But whatever the story is, the bottom line is that Saddam is in custody. I'm sure that's pretty much all that matters to the "we suphorts da peepels that gets dem evil doooers" crowd here in the states.
But whatever the story is, the bottom line is that Saddam is in custody. I'm sure that's pretty much all that matters to the "we suphorts da peepels that gets dem evil doooers" crowd here in the states.
It hasn't been reported that way in any major western media.tuna said:
Personally, I think its a way for the Arab world (who seems to be propagating this story) to avoid giving recognition to the US.
Come on, how ludicrous does this sound? The kurds had him, but then drugged him, put him in the hole, and then left? The most wanted guy in the world, and you risk leaving him on his own? If the kurds had him captured already, why not just hand him over directly. Lowest risk. No chance of accidental release, or accidental shooting.
The total source for this "rumor" is KurdMedia.com, and if you've been reading that site for the last few months, you'd see a common pattern of the Peshmerga lying around their military involvement to see more heroic. The arabs just don't want to believe Saddam was defeated so easily. They need an excuse, because it is humiliating to be defeated so quickly and easily.
You really think the kurdish Peshmerga could freely roam about tracking Saddam in a Sunni stronghold without coalition escort?
Sorry, this story is full of holes and sounds like the "4,000 jews leave WTC before planes hit" or "10,000 american soldiers dead, bodies hidden" stories that have come out of Arab media.
The total source for this "rumor" is KurdMedia.com, and if you've been reading that site for the last few months, you'd see a common pattern of the Peshmerga lying around their military involvement to see more heroic. The arabs just don't want to believe Saddam was defeated so easily. They need an excuse, because it is humiliating to be defeated so quickly and easily.
You really think the kurdish Peshmerga could freely roam about tracking Saddam in a Sunni stronghold without coalition escort?
Sorry, this story is full of holes and sounds like the "4,000 jews leave WTC before planes hit" or "10,000 american soldiers dead, bodies hidden" stories that have come out of Arab media.
Willmeister
Newcomer
Or the Jessica Lynch story... she was shot... no... she was stabbed... no she wasn't stabbed... now she was raped... she said she wasn't.
Willmeister
Newcomer
Don't blame her or the armed forces. It was media speculation that was out of control.
I prefer the ludicrous story of "Iraq doctor says Americans were using blanks" myself.
But of course, as I point out over and over, we now know the truth about those stories in the Western press, because eventually, our adversial system gets to the truth. Do Arab media ever issue retractions, or do Arabs ever see their governments or media facts exposed as wrong?
Eyewitness reports are usually always wrong, so it is not surprise that single-sourced or unreliable witness stories are often wrong when first reported, but we now have a more complete picture.
I wonder if the Kurds will ever see a clearer picture from KurdMedia.com
But of course, as I point out over and over, we now know the truth about those stories in the Western press, because eventually, our adversial system gets to the truth. Do Arab media ever issue retractions, or do Arabs ever see their governments or media facts exposed as wrong?
Eyewitness reports are usually always wrong, so it is not surprise that single-sourced or unreliable witness stories are often wrong when first reported, but we now have a more complete picture.
I wonder if the Kurds will ever see a clearer picture from KurdMedia.com
I don't care if western stations want to carry AlJazeera. Better to know thy enemy. The rest of the world gets flooded with Western media. It will be better for us if we see the world from their point of view (even if it is wrong) so we can better understand how to change their mind.
It also might set a lesson which they may have to follow about tolerance.
I read lefty sites all the time to see what they're thinking, I avoid FOX, but have listened to Rush a few times (as well as Bernie Ward, the Rush of the Left) before switching them off. FOX really annoyed me during the war with their animations (Bald Eagle morphing into F-15E) and rah-rah commentary.
Perhaps 10 years from now, every human being will be carrying around a video recorder in something like a cell phone, and news will be truly unfiltered. It already seems to be happening now as Blogs with digi-cams scoop the major media (e.g. tens of thousands of Iraqis march against resistance fighters, major media is there recording it, but no stories appear anywhere until an Iraqi dentist who was sent a digital camera posts pictures from the even and a diary on his blog)
We won't have to depend on "documentaries" which edit together random historical footage. We'll have a live feed from everywhere, real world, Tivo'ed. Already happening in Japan. Some local news bureaus have a phone number set up where Japanese with video-phones can call in with eyewitness video of unfolding events.
It also might set a lesson which they may have to follow about tolerance.
I read lefty sites all the time to see what they're thinking, I avoid FOX, but have listened to Rush a few times (as well as Bernie Ward, the Rush of the Left) before switching them off. FOX really annoyed me during the war with their animations (Bald Eagle morphing into F-15E) and rah-rah commentary.
Perhaps 10 years from now, every human being will be carrying around a video recorder in something like a cell phone, and news will be truly unfiltered. It already seems to be happening now as Blogs with digi-cams scoop the major media (e.g. tens of thousands of Iraqis march against resistance fighters, major media is there recording it, but no stories appear anywhere until an Iraqi dentist who was sent a digital camera posts pictures from the even and a diary on his blog)
We won't have to depend on "documentaries" which edit together random historical footage. We'll have a live feed from everywhere, real world, Tivo'ed. Already happening in Japan. Some local news bureaus have a phone number set up where Japanese with video-phones can call in with eyewitness video of unfolding events.
I watch Fox these days simply because they're the least likely to be obsessing over Micheal Jackson, Kobe Bryant, or Laci Peterson.
Anybody who gets 3 commentators on at once for a talking heads battle gets the boot, though. The worst was the Democratic leader and Republican leader of CA. The pair were made for each other: complete, rude, ingrates.
Fred said:
I don't disagree with your assertion that America is not a pure 'laissez faire' system but it certainly does have a greater political will not to mention policies that favor of free market economics. It all depends on how you approach matters. If you come at it from a collectivist egalitarian mentality you approach things very much the same way Marxist see things.
The problem with the critical mind is that once everything is fixed it will continue to look for problems to fix.
Even economics can fall into the philosophical arena of collectivism vs individualism. Macro Economics (Keynesian) vs Micro Economics (Hayek). The collectivist prefers the top down model while the individualist prefers a bottom up style. I understand Fred that many government policies are not so clear in their intension. The whole problem is that the grey is formed from the extremes in a melding in the center so too speak. Without the extremes there wouldn't be a grey area to concern ourselves with. It all comes down the extremes imposing their assumptions on centrist policy that determines a lot. For instance if you view unemployment as wasted labor rather then unneeded labor it creates entirely different social policy with fantastic implications both in terms of government spending and debt as well as economically. Most people don't sit around thinking in these terms so I realize that what I say can come off as unusual. Logic is logic and when this idea fell in my lap from thinking about group dynamics the peaces began to fall into place rather nicely. I know the peaces fit, the puzzle comes together nicely under the collective vs individual banner. Knowing how to make them fit is the difficulty.
I also use human nature vs human nurture to help me fit things together philosophically speaking. The collectivist model has strong bias in the nature vs nurture argument. Because everyone is ultimately not responsible for their own well being in the nanny state the state has a great stake in how the electorate turns out and what sorts of mentalities are prevalent. State run education creates a standardized mentality only allowing for certain ideas to be taught as truth. Social workers become enforcers of the state in the home and the state creates outlandish laws such as anti spanking laws the state moves in much like a third party parent. They very much believe (or would like to) that individuals are the sum of their socializations (nurture) and it is simply a matter of changing these effects to get a disired outcome. There is no room for human nature in their model and prefer to think that all are a "blank slate" at birth. Generally speaking of course, this is very hard core left wing retoric.
Even with a good understanding of these ideas it still gets difficult to sort out things. In essence though the grey area in the center is nothing but a mixed up mess with sometimes ideals from both collective vs individual overlapping in government policy, just like you pointed out but the grey is not a mystery. But to understand the grey you have to understand the extremes. I personally like to see balance of the grey but I see the collectivist policies a slippery slope and difficult to reverse without great tribulation. So when I see things sliding left I get apprehensive. I guess my point is, without the extremes that are definitive much more so then the grey areas in the center, there would be no center. It is all about which side of center, if you do that at all, that are based on assumptions founded on the extremes which may or may not be right/wrong that have the power to drastically alter spending policies. I don't disagree that indeed the "difference is in the subtelties and the grey inbetween" rather I would endorse that idea whole heartedly. But these subtle differences are based on very different assumptions formed on the extreme ends of philosophical arguments. Mainly I find much of which flow out of the collectivism vs individualism debate.
Clashman said:
This is not to say that living in Sweden is exactly the same as living in a communist system but the similarities are there and much of the same authoritarian mentality is prevalent. You rally around haughty notions of equality and social justice much of which is the bases of Marxism. You whine about what others have in terms of finances whether it was earned through hard work or inherited from family. The idea that someone has earned their way with some sort of intension does not register so clearly. Yes a democracy can be shaped by the electorate into an authoritative model, in fact my argument is that it can slip into it easily. By virtue of the fact that candidates might be willing to give an electorate what they want ironically. Cases in point are things like guaranteed incomes or Medicare services. Well, these things sound rosy on the top and people love the idea that should they leave a job because they don't want to work anymore that they will be insured an income. People love to think that their healthcare is free and provided by the state and they love the idea of receiving services free from the state. But the sad irony is that they are not free and whether or not you want or use them individuals have to pay for these fluffy perks the state seems to hand out. Never mind the charter law that reinforces government social policies like guaranteed incomes etc.
Further I will advance the argument that a state that employs a great deal of the electorate is anti-democratic. In such a system the people are spending more and more of their time paying the state for these services and huge public service sectors so much so that the process of reversing the state run system becomes quite nearly impossible. People come to think that they could not possibly do without the services the state offers. The state also will often overspend to keep up appearances when the economy goes south putting the country more and more in debt. Then compound interest on the borrowed monies outstanding begins and the government begins to throw more and more money out the window on interest payments. With less money in their coffers it forces the hand of the government to raise taxes further then before consumers realize what has happened they are paying an average of 50% - 70% of their entire income for these services and money gulping public sector. Elections issues become skewed by the public sector because they need to have greater incomes as a result of the higher taxation. A great many in the heavily controlled, regulated and taxed private sector depend on that demographic and will support a push for more higher pay not to mention the resumption of services that have been withdrawn.
If we go back and look at the original bias, the problem is founded in egalitarian principles of universal guaranteed incomes or universal health care etc. What is even a greater fear is that once financial matters have gotten so bad and the public is brainwashed enough by collectivist mentalities that some elected official in order to rectify things will possibly say to hell with individual incomes all together and move even further left to communist central planning.
Egalitarian principles are absolutist in their nature and since this is the guiding principle of the state in the welfare state it is a form of authoritarianism. Because it takes your hard earned cash, whether you want the state to or not, it is authoritarian. Even if the people agree the state takes their incomes via taxation it is still authoritarian, a collectively applied one. Never mind the brainwashing or the weak mindedness that would have to be in place for a free people to view the government taking some much of their income from their hard work. When you surrender large portions of your income you surrender a great deal of your liberty and self reliance as well. Once the state becomes so involved with the electorate on the individual level the idea that the state ought to reverse its course becomes more and more preposterous and mainstream parties don't even include it in their agenda. Not to mention the fact that charter law reinforces the states obligations to uphold the interpreted guarantees regardless of electorates votes making polices that are opposed to the egalitarian nature of the state unconstitutional without some radical amendment. That alone creates an absolutist authoritarian egalitarian mentality.
It is ironic that the very article meant to protect individuals from state intervention and exploitation gives the state the ultimate power of taxing and spending your hard earned income in a collective manner. In other words should you disagree with how it is spent or even if you elect a government that disagrees with how your money is spent charter law is written in stone and very difficult to change. Individual freedom in a capitalistic society is very much tied in with disposable income. So by definition given that assumption that individual liberty is tied to how you spend your money, a high taxing welfare state is authoritarian and borders on slavery for the collective. This is not to say that I am against human rights, freedom of speach, property rights etc (unfairly labeled "negative rights") are fantastic. Judicial activism may also be viewed as authoritarian. But that is a whole other [/rant].
So as much as you admire the US sabastian you would do away with all men are created equal I suppose... Socialist states unlike social democracies which are branded as such here are indeed corporations. Communism was a corporate structure. The problem with corporations is that they sheild those who would do wrong in and with them.
It has nothing to do with not liking big business. We need large structures private and public as some things cant be realized without them. But we need transparency afforded by democracy to avoid really terible things whether gross worker abuses or environmental damage both of which are common in palces with little or no government intervention. The old argument creeps up again: create a power vacuum and it will be filled by someone or something else and it wont necessarily be to the advantage of most or even many of us...
It has nothing to do with not liking big business. We need large structures private and public as some things cant be realized without them. But we need transparency afforded by democracy to avoid really terible things whether gross worker abuses or environmental damage both of which are common in palces with little or no government intervention. The old argument creeps up again: create a power vacuum and it will be filled by someone or something else and it wont necessarily be to the advantage of most or even many of us...
