Say Anything Blog

I think that the problem with your equation is that you assume Jan 30 elections=democracy. In reality, Jan 30 elections=a thin veneer of legitimacy on the for-profit occupation of Iraq.

Of course we ALL agree here that bin Laden*=murderous bastard and Hussein=evil thug.

*remember him? Bush doesn’t…

It seems to me that we’re fighting Osama’s hordes in Iraq right now.  Didn’t you hear that released recording of him calling on Iraqi’s to not vote?  And his best buddy Zarqawi has been in Iraq for some time now.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Don Myers keeps on asserting, “I think that the problem with your equation is that you assume Jan 30 elections=democracy. In reality, Jan 30 elections=a thin veneer of legitimacy on the for-profit occupation of Iraq.”

And your proof of the “for-profit occupation” being the reason = zero!

Of course we ALL agree here that bin Laden*=murderous bastard and Hussein=evil thug.  *remember him? Bush doesn’t…

Ahh…you’re assuming again.  Is ASSuming a big part of being in the “reality-based community”?  Sure seems like a common trait…

likwidshoe:

Actually there is a great deal of evidence that this occupation is a for-profit enterprise, and I’ve cited it ad infinitum on this site. Unfortunately it usually involves getting your head out of NewsMax’s ass and reading a book now and then…and let’s face it, there is little chance of that hapening anytime soon, is there?

Rob:

It seems to me that we’re fighting Osama’s hordes in Iraq right NOW. Didn’t you hear that released recording of him calling on Iraqi’s to not vote? And his best buddy Zarqawi has been in Iraq for some time NOW. [emphasis mine]

Can you guess what the operative word is here?

Um, you can’t have a democracy if the Sunnis are already planning to boycott the election.  And now other Iraqis are going to do the same out of fear.

Real democracy will take place when the country is secure enough for ALL candidates to campaign and for ALL citezens who want to vote to make it to the polls.  I wouldn’t count on this happening in a month. 

Bush himself said these things take time, yet this time he wants to rush things.  This is what makes people like Don and I wonder about his true motives.

Why I even bother to correct Don I don’t know, but come on now Don.  You come here all the time, spout off conspiracy theories, trash Rob every time you make a comment, clump everyone who disagrees with you into a group of Newsmax-only readers, etc.

There is much more evidence this was not a war for profit.  Perhaps the largest piece of evidence, though who knows if a Liberal could understand logic, is that our deficit has grown since the war started.  If we were making money off of this war, where’s the shrinking deficit? 

Oh, that’s right.  Again none of your arguments have to be fact based; they only have to take shots at Rob.

I don’t think anyone really knows what motivates the Sunnis to do anyting.  From what I’ve read, it seems they feel the proposed system will not fairly represent minorities like themselves.  Sure they’re a little cranky now they their dictatorship is gone. They just want to be sure they won’t be ignored by the next government.

Um, you can’t have a democracy if the Sunnis are already planning to boycott the election.

A democracy requires that the election be open to all those who’d like to be involved.  It does not require that all people actually involve themselves.

And now other Iraqis are going to do the same out of fear.

We’ll see, but I don’t think so.

Real democracy will take place when the country is secure enough for ALL candidates to campaign and for ALL citezens who want to vote to make it to the polls. I wouldn’t count on this happening in a month.

You’re missing the point.  The Sunni’s motivation is not fear…their motivation is to disrupt the budding democracy in Iraq.  The elections are open for them to participate if they wish.  If their choice is to abstain then fine.  The rest of the Iraqi’s will (hopefully) participate.

Of course, we don’t know if they will or not.  There is a lot to be afraid of at this point…but if freedom is important to them they will vote.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Late 1780’s: Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Adams were among the group who did not want to participate in the new United States unless the Constitution be ammended to include what became the Bill of Rights.  Later, these four men each became presidents and the ideology of their Democratic-Republican Party serves as the backbone for what Dems and Reps have in common today.

The story with the Sunnis is a bit different, I’ll admit that.  But there are still some parallels worth noticing.

That’s not the impression I was getting at all, but maybe you’ve got a source with a different perspective?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Ah….poor, sweet, simple Chad:

Perhaps the largest piece of evidence, though who knows if a Liberal could understand logic, is that our deficit has grown since the war started. If we were making money off of this war, where’s the shrinking deficit?

It’s not the US Gov’t turning a profit, you idjit…it’s the transnational war conglomerates like DynCorp, Raytheon, United Technologies, and General Electric. It’s something Eisenhower called “the military-industrial complex.” Look it up, kid.

The deficit is growing at leaps and bounds because money is flying out of YOUR pockets and into THEIRS.

Now let me ask you a question: the war has cost $100 billion so far. Where do you think that money went?

They just want to be sure they won’t be ignored by the next government.

A good way to avoid that might be to actually participate in the next government…like these upcoming elections for example.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Okay, if that’s the case, then you’re right.  I was under the impression they were willing to be democratic, but were being cautious about minority rights.

That’s a good point but I think you have to look at each situation independently.

The point our founding fathers were standing on was a bill of rights.  And they were absolutely correct and eventually got their way.  The point the Sunni’s are standing on (I beleive) is that they don’t want a representative government.  They’d rather appoint another dictator who would pander to their minority political point of view.  They are wrong in that and should not get their way.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

That may be true, but apparently that rivalry is over if recent reports about Zarqawi’s pledge of allegiance to Osama and Osama’s acceptance of it tells us anything.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Certainly.

Here’s Zarqawi’s group giving allegiance to Osama:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/17/al.zarqawi.statement/

And here’s Osama endorsing Zarqawi:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/27/binladen.tape/

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Actually, Zarqawi “declaring his allegiance” to Osama happened back in October.  Not sure it got much media attention though…

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Interesting… Very recent developments I was unaware of. I must have missed that tape (or at least the salient details) over Christmas. Thanks Rob.

Curious - can you give me a link?

‘And his best buddy Zarqawi has been in Iraq for some time now.’

I think it is stretching things a little to describe bin Laden and Zarqawi as ‘buddies’.

Zarqawi was in Afghanistan in the mid-90s, but had his own, independent, base, near Herat (in west Afghanistan, hundreds of miles from bin Laden’s camp), and had his own independent organisation, al-Tauhid. It is probable that the two met on a few occasions, but strong evidence suggests that they were, rather than being friends, intense and bitter rivals.

Rephrase - ‘relatively recent’.

I don’t quite know why Zarqawi’s group has decided, now, to align itself with bin Laden - I would guess that they are probably running short of funds, and this move will encourage a flow of cash from international donors.

More importantly, I think what the emergence of Zarqawi’s group shows is that the phenomenon we are dealing with is something of a hydra - chop off one head, another will reappear. There is not a finite number of islamists out there.

First off Don, you hardly know me therefore calling me “poor, sweet, simple Chad” an idjit and a kid gets you no where other than revealing yourself for the pessimistic asshole you really are.  Are the companies providing the weapons, ammo, communications, etc. makeing money?  Of course they are.  That’s how things work in Capitalism.  Maybe you need to learn how a capitilistic society works and quit advocating for socialism?

Where you fail to comprehend in your small grey matter capable of intellectual stimulation is that these companies can’t run themselves.  They hire people like you and I where we turn around and put our money, earned from them, into the economy.  It’s kind of a like a circle of money in case you need geometric shapes as symbols. 

War can be profitable, however not all wars make the economy money.  I got that information from reading books, which you argue we all should do.  It’s great you read books Don, but the problems with war and economies cannot be found in Go Dog Go or Moonbats for Dummies.