What good do you see in it all?

[jane_says]

Well, since the Chinese government is so well-known for its generousity and humanitarianism, you go ahead and get down on your knees in gratitude when they get here, Undertoad. There won't come a time (in my lifetime, anyway) when the US will need China's, or any other nation's help to shield us poor, poor citizens from the US government. On the other hand, I'm also explicitly NOT saying that we should blindly follow our (democratically elected, but I'll give you a pass on that too for the 2000 election) leaders. All I'm saying is that if the Chinese come "liberating", my neighbors and I wouldn't be out of line in asking them to leave, and taking immediate action if they refused.

BTW, what makes you think the Chinese are any more interested in us having a "free society" than they are in giving the same to their own citizens?

You're being deliberately obtuse.

[lumberjim]

jane, i think you are being a tad argumentative. it is not impossible that sm's future could come true. how could you say that once, much less repeat it 3 times? how the hell do you know what the future holds? you been there? and mari's analogy with china?

and who want to impose a system of government that we have no experience with and find threatening at best.

where did she say they wanted to us to have a free society? as the quote marks you used would indicate.

you accuse SM of using a straw man, and then you promptly put words in UT's mouth so you can argue with them. and sm's post was well written, as most of his posts are. you're new, but i wanted to let you know that you are stepping in it here.

ps, have you seen my troll....er wig...around?

[jane_says]

First, Jim, mari is not the one who used the words "free society" - that was Undertoad. Second page, about 2/3 of the way down, in one of many drive-by posts. I don't have to be from the future to know that Smooth's scenarion IS. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. I'm not arguing with mari - I think the China scenario presents a better analogy - we invaded Iraq, took down the dictator, and continue to hold many innocent citizens prisoner, have little "accidents", and generally bull up when anyone suggests that we ought to move right along. I'm saying that if Irag had wanted out from under Saddam, they're have done so themselves. It would have been bloody, to be sure, but certainly no more so than we've caused it to be.

Show me where I've put words in Smooth's mouth. I also asked for proof of using a straw man - no answer on that either yet.

New or not, lumberjim, thanks for the advice on "stepping in it", whatever you mean by that. If your intent was to spare me the embarrassment of getting eaten alive by more experienced, red-hot debaters, I'll fend for myself. Thanks for your concern, though.

Also, at the other quality message boards where I post, accusations of trolling, even thinly-veiled ones, or ones that include singing, are grounds for banning. I suspect that's not the case here?

Argumentative does not equal wrong.

[Undertoad]

Jane, we were previously trying to construct a good analogy, so if you believe that China in the analogy is not acting in the US's best interests... do you also believe that the US is not acting in Iraq's best interests?

[Happy Monkey]

I'm not Jane, but I definitely believe that many Iraqis believe that the US is not acting in Iraq's best interests.

[Undertoad]

Also, at the other quality message boards where I post, accusations of trolling, even thinly-veiled ones, or ones that include singing, are grounds for banning. I suspect that's not the case here?

Oh, you might have registered before the registration process showed the Cellar rules. Hit the new registration page and see what the rules are.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm not Jane, but I definitely believe that many Iraqis believe that the US is not acting in Iraq's best interests.

Okay, do you think they're wrong?

[lumberjim]

First, Jim, mari is not the one who used the words "free society" - that was Undertoad.

my bad. I misunderstood.

as did you, it seems:

Show me where I've put words in Smooth's mouth

.

and then you promptly put words in UT's mouth

there is no banning here. well, unless you are really really exceptionally annoying.

by stepping in it, i was cautioning you that you are being shitty to people that are generally well thought out and careful about what they say. i'll not take up their side of the argument, as they're both big boys, and can fend for themselves as well.

now 4 times, you say the future sm describes is impossible. i disagree. Do YOU need a dictionary? impossible means there is zero chance that it could happen. it is POSSIBLE that we could be invaded by a race of space faring octopi, and put into slavery on another planet. improbable, yes, impossible?....no. .....or are you being "deliberately obtuse?"

[jaguar]

Smooth made damn good point as as UT said, pity you all missed it, particularly you jane. Since you seem incapable of enough imagination to understand what he was saying, i'll outline a more likely and more realistic scenario. I'll ignore the fact that the likelyhood of the scenario should be irrelevent.

Widespread failure/unaccountability of over 2 million votes in november by electronic voting machines causes the election to fall into disarray. The issue goes to a supreme court that gets loaded in bush's favor and the election is largely viewed as hijacked, even inside the US. The Patriot II act is dug up, re-branded the Save the Children and Kill Terrorists act creating the groundwork for a police state in the US. Another major terrorist attack involving chemical weapons in D.C causes a far further erosion of civil liberties while keep discontent below boiling point. The heads of the major media networks, all of whom have strong ties and relationships with the white house (big biz has done well and the republicans have done well from them) push an agenda that changing leadership in the middle of this crucial war for our freedom would be counterproductive and hurt the effort to keep our proud fighting men and women able to do their work....

While anyone here will attest that I am no fan of the invasion of Iraq, the idea that the people would rise up is laughable. They did, multiple times. The last time was just after the first Iraq war, they thought they were doing it with the support of the US who promptly pulled out and left them to get shot to bits. If you talk to anyone that was on the ground in the intervening 10 years or so (I have) you'd know that the opression was so absolute, so complete that organising a resistance movement capable of taking down Saddam as he stood was close to impossible.

Trust me, get get trolls out of here fairly fast. Apart from Radar, eveyone needs a laugh.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Okay, do you think they're wrong?

I hope they're wrong.

[jane_says]

UT, I certainly do not believe that the US is acting in the best interest if Iraq.

Lumber, I will concede to "highly, highly in-friggin-probable" instead of "impossible". My feeling is that the connotation is the same, but whatever floats your boat, right? And sorry for the UT / Smooth typo. Trying to defend my position in the midst of bedlam here at my desk - apologies to anyone offended by the name switch. I'd still like a cite or putting words in anyone's mouth, though.

Jaguar, you're preaching to the choir about the stolen election - I even referenced it somewhere in the middle of this trainwreck - the fact is that we are still comparing apples to oranges with this "US is analogous to Iraq because of A and B." I will call your scenario just as highly in-friggin-probable as the aforementioned one.

You know, my husband, a decorated Army Ranger, disagrees with your assertion of what "anyone who was on the ground in the interening 10 years or so" might opine. He was there, but doesn't presuppose to know what the entire if the Iraqi nation might or might not have felt. I don't consider your opinion that is was impossible for the Iraqis to oust Saddam any more reasonable than my opinion that it's impossible that the Chinese, or the Brits, or the Martians, might have to liberate us from Bushco. As I mentioned before, I think the Iraqis could have killed Saddam if they had chosen to, but did not do so due to well-founded fear.

Lumber, be honest, now: you watched that Twilight Zone marathon on SciFi last weekend, didn't you?

I am truly not trying to be shitty here on purpose. I feel very strongly that the war in Iraq is wrongheaded, unwarranted, and self-serving. I also like to debate intelligent people with different points of view. I'll stop now, as I don't want any hard feelings.

[lumberjim]

I'd still like a cite or putting words in anyone's mouth, though.

here and here

[Undertoad]

So, Jane, you figure Hussein was a better deal for them, or what?

[jane_says]

First cite: asking for clarification. It was a question. It's called mirroring. I gave him a synopsis of the way I understood what he said, and asked for clarification. Absolutely not putting anything in anyone's mouth.


Second cite: Hey, he REFUSED to say wht information we should have gleaned from the post, saying only that HE understood, and he was NOT going to explain it. I gave my opinion of his Angelica Pickles-style debate. I charaterized his attitude as I saw it. I'm still looking for that ring, BTW.

Thanks for the fun, guys. You've kept me occupied for a couple of hours, but now I'm off for lunch. For real debating fun, go to straightdope.com.

[jaguar]

Well we'll agree to disagree on the probability of that little scenario. As for the likelihood of Saddam being overthrowable, after a number of attempts that had been bloodily put down, is it any surprise? You don't really make that much sense, you seem to be saying theoretically it was possible but everyone was too scared. Doesn't that mean, in practical terms it just plain wasn't going to happen? Considering how many attempts had failed and the perceived apathy of the outside world is it any surprise it didn't happen? I prefer not to talk in absolutes and you would notice I said ''close to" impossible, not impossible, but impossible outside exceptional and unlikely circumstances that were unlikely to occur in the near (Saddam's lifetime) future without external influence of the kind your husband would be involved in applying.

I base my opinion on journos I've spoken to who were in Baghdad and managed to speak to those that were willing to express their discontent. I'm obviously not aware where your husband was but I doubt he was in such a situation and I can't think what he would be doing in any major city that he would be allowed to talk about frankly.