Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates, by Arundhati Roy

[Whit]

     CZ, have you considered the approach you chose is no different? That initial essay was propaganda. He responded with the same basic feelings that went into the essay, he was just more open about it. More to the point as well.
     You say he's "turning what could be a good debate into a flamewar" but where is your debate? I've tried to engage and I've been ignored while you focus on griping at UT.
     Also you talk about Bush turning the world against us, is this new? I thought he'd been pissing the world off since he was elected? Trust me, we are very much aware of it. I'm sure it will cost him some votes, even if it's impossible to say how many. What other response would you expect?

[Undertoad]

CZ, I have a deep interest in having a real discussion of all of the issues. I really wish your essayist had a similar take, but she's ignorant, ill-informed, and when she isn't sure she makes stuff up. But don't take my word on that, read the news item.

Meanwhile, look: you're a Brazilian activist quoting an Indian novelist working in a British medium to claim that Americans are led by their noses by propaganda. And when the American challenges that notion on its lack of merits, you say he's in denial.

The irony really could not be thicker.

By the way, not only is the argument patently ridiculous on its face, it's also offensive as hell.

And frankly, if I'm simply led and propagandist, I'm not sure why an honest examination of the facts would be what you want from me. I'm just gonna parrot the usual ill-considered non-arguments, like "stop the torture" and "end nuclear proliferation" and "international terrorism is bad", you know, stuff like that.

[Count Zero]

Originally posted by Undertoad
CZ, I have a deep interest in having a real discussion of all of the issues. I really wish your essayist had a similar take, but she's ignorant, ill-informed, and when she isn't sure she makes stuff up. But don't take my word on that, read the news item.

I read the thing, and seriously I don't know what's your point. It talks about some food warehouse that was taken. It contained "tons of supplies". Those being "vast amounts of food staples, tea, sugar, tires, car batteries and sewing machines". How much of it was actually food? Is it good food? Would it be enough to stop the need? They don't say.

And in the end they have this warning:
"EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting, in which journalists join deployed troops. Among the rules accepted by all participating news organizations is an agreement not to disclose sensitive operational details."

How can you trust news sources that are directly censored by the pentagon ?

Meanwhile, look: you're a Brazilian activist quoting an Indian novelist working in a British medium to claim that Americans are led by their noses by propaganda. And when the American challenges that notion on its lack of merits, you say he's in denial.

The irony really could not be thicker.

I tried, but I can't see the irony really. I said you're in denial not because you challenged it, but because you did so in such a childish and unsubstantial way.

By the way, not only is the argument patently ridiculous on its face, it's also offensive as hell.

You say it's ridiculous but you fail to elaborate on it. So only people who already agree with you share the same opinion.

And how do you find it offensive? Please give me an example.

And frankly, if I'm simply led and propagandist, I'm not sure why an honest examination of the facts would be what you want from me.

Because I want to know how far it goes.

I'm just gonna parrot the usual ill-considered non-arguments, like "stop the torture" and "end nuclear proliferation" and "international terrorism is bad", you know, stuff like that.

Funny, that's normally part of my argumentation against the US government's policy.

Originally posted by Whit
     CZ, have you considered the approach you chose is no different? That initial essay was propaganda.

It's very different. The text is elaborate on its discussions. It's not just "saddam is bad, m'okey".

You say he's "turning what could be a good debate into a flamewar" but where is your debate? I've tried to engage and I've been ignored while you focus on griping at UT.

I haven't really tried to start it. I don't feel like going into a crusade here where obviously everyone already has his mind made. There's no ambient for a comfortable discussion on this.

;Also you talk about Bush turning the world against us, is this new? I thought he'd been pissing the world off since he was elected?

It's very new. He's been pissing people off even _before_ he got "elected", but since he started to want to go to war the world public opinion on him, and on the US, reached a configuration _never_ seen before.

Trust me, we are very much aware of it. I'm sure it will cost him some votes, even if it's impossible to say how many. What other response would you expect?

In the US ? None.

Internationally, I don't know what to expect, but none of it is good. Increase in terrorism toward the US is probably going to happen.

[Undertoad]

If you don't trust my sources, I don't trust Roy's.

Fact: the whole depleted uranium scare nonsense has been so thoroughly debunked that anyone still using it is either outright lying or not paying attention.

Fact: if you want to fact-check her "blowing up in the streets" gas, just take a look at spaceimaging.com. You can look at the damage yourself, at 1-meter resolution. You can see the vast areas of residential neighborhoods, completely untouched by the war... and the presidential palace blown to bits.

Common sense: If the US military wanted to kill Iraqi civilians, the number of dead would be in the millions.

If you believe I'm affected by propaganda, AND you believe you can determine "how far it goes", then you must assume that you have perfect knowledge of truth - otherwise you'd not know what was right and what wrong, so as to compare it to my beliefs.

Have you ever been wrong?

[Whit]

It's very different. The text is elaborate on its discussions. It's not just "saddam is bad, m'okey".

     It's different only in the sense that it's "US is bad m'okey." I responded to it remember? The only point I remember thinking was valid was that Bush is fun to make fun of. Please share with us it's validity elsewhere in the piece. I'd be happy to discuss any part of it. By the by, the author clearly has no idea, but do you have any idea how much the US is holding back? I wasn't joking about the 'Great Iraqi Glass Sheet' line. I'm not talking nukes either, so I don't want to hear anything about radioactive fallout.
     As far as Bush goes other than voting him out next election I can't seem to figure out what you'd have us do. Also I've talked to many people in person that say Bush's policies will assure that they vote against him, so unless you assume all US citizens are complete liars then saying "none" is flat wrong. If you are saying this there's no point talking to us here, it would mean most of us are complete liars.
     One more thing, have you been reading this site for the last couple of years? If you had I'd think that you'd have read plenty of anti-Bush sentiment. Yet, you act like all US citizens worship Bush and eagerly serve his every whim. To tell the truth, that's really offensive. I just won't let being offended get in the way of trying to see another viewpoint.

[Count Zero]

Originally posted by Undertoad
If you don't trust my sources, I don't trust Roy's.

She bases a lot of her opinions on figures and news from mainstream media. So does Chomsky. They just don't trust them blindly as you seem to do.

Fact: the whole depleted uranium scare nonsense has been so thoroughly debunked that anyone still using it is either outright lying or not paying attention.

What exactly are you talking about? About it causing or not causing diseases? About the US using them or not? About the soldiers in the past gulf war suffering or not from them?

Fact: if you want to fact-check her "blowing up in the streets" gas, just take a look at spaceimaging.com. You can look at the damage yourself, at 1-meter resolution. You can see the vast areas of residential neighborhoods, completely untouched by the war... and the presidential palace blown to bits.

That site doesn't even come close to showing the whole "theater of operations". I think that pretty much would be classified information.

Common sense: If the US military wanted to kill Iraqi civilians, the number of dead would be in the millions.

Very true. Even though Iraqi civilians are not the primary targets, they'll be trod upon if they get in the way. There's no such thing as a surgical war. The primary targets are more important than the lives of those people.

And if you consider the effects the war will have in the long run, and all the people that will die of things like hunger and diseases because of the destruction of the country's infrastructure, which is necessary to win a war, then what you have is mass murder. Just like all the deaths due to the last war.

There's a professor in my university whose family is from Iraq. He said that he went there last year and brought school material for his nieces (paper, pencil, textbooks, etc.). They didn't let him in with that stuff because of the sanctions. That's the type of thing the US government is willing to do to "bring democracy to Iraq".

If you believe I'm affected by propaganda, AND you believe you can determine "how far it goes", then you must assume that you have perfect knowledge of truth - otherwise you'd not know what was right and what wrong, so as to compare it to my beliefs.

I meant to say that I wanted to know how far your opinion goes into the matter, and if there's any region of convergence of ideas between us. I guess not.

Have you ever been wrong?

Several times. But I don't think assuming that a government that produced people like Henry Kissinger and supported dictators like Pinochet is up to no good is a very far-fetched idea.

Originally posted by Whit
It's different only in the sense that it's "US is bad m'okey." I responded to it remember? The only point I remember thinking was valid was that Bush is fun to make fun of. Please share with us it's validity elsewhere in the piece. I'd be happy to discuss any part of it.

OK, here it goes:

On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an "embedded" CNN correspondent interviewed an American soldier. "I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty," Private AJ said. "I wanna take revenge for 9/11."

[...]

According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the American public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC news poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America's armed forces believe these fabrications is anybody's guess.

Since the sources are mainstream, I guess you people trust it.

Do you think it's OK for the government to go ahead with this war thinking it has full popular support when the people are so uninformed? Do you think it's a coincidence that only the American population believes in this and they're the only ones that support (in majority) the war?

By the by, the author clearly has no idea, but do you have any idea how much the US is holding back? I wasn't joking about the 'Great Iraqi Glass Sheet' line. I'm not talking nukes either, so I don't want to hear anything about radioactive fallout.

The only reason they don't do that is because it's not their best interest. It means much more to them to take over the region and use it instead of destroying it. The US wanted Iraq for quite some time. It has nothing to do with Saddam. In fact there was no Saddam, he only appeared because US intervention put him there.

As far as Bush goes other than voting him out next election I can't seem to figure out what you'd have us do.

We impeached our president here once. It should be even easier to do it with Bush there since he lost the popular elections. The reason why this is not going to happen is because he is posing as the defender of America, and somehow people got to trust him.

If you don't like Bush it's not enough simply not voting for him the next time. Hell, that didn't work the first time! You have to show your dislike so it becomes very obvious to everyone else. You know, make an issue out of it. There are several ways to do this: Public protest, letters to congressmen, creative work, etc.

Also I've talked to many people in person that say Bush's policies will assure that they vote against him, so unless you assume all US citizens are complete liars then saying "none" is flat wrong. If you are saying this there's no point talking to us here, it would mean most of us are complete liars.

I was wrong to say 'none' because there's already a lot of protests in the US against the whole thing. The protests have begun even before the war, which is unprecedented. But the way the government got the public opinion by it's leach doesn't fill me with high hopes. But maybe I'm wrong and everything will turn around.

One more thing, have you been reading this site for the last couple of years? If you had I'd think that you'd have read plenty of anti-Bush sentiment. Yet, you act like all US citizens worship Bush and eagerly serve his every whim. To tell the truth, that's really offensive. I just won't let being offended get in the way of trying to see another viewpoint.

That's certainly not what I think. I know that it's unanimous that Bush is a nimrod. That's why I find the whole situation absurd. Even though people don't like him, they support him because he's the government, and the government representes their country and they support their country. This, in my view, is pseudo-patriotism and is upside down.

I think real patriotism would be separating the government from the country itself, and being in favor of the country. If the government is messing things up, as it usually does everywhere, then the patriot thing to do would be to criticize it.

[Undertoad]

(I really hate quoting text in this particular way so I'm just going to not quote what you said. I think it'll flow better that way. People remember what you wrote.)

A good summary of why DU is not the hazard the progressives make it out to be (scroll way down):
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/20...ustrated.shtml

Okay, so you don't like using war on Saddam, and you didn't like sanctions at all... again, what would have been your approach to the guy?

Kissinger and Pinochet: hey, mistakes were made. But that was the 70s! Does this mean some sort of "original sin" applies where it's impossible to do anything right from here on out? Is there no time limit on this stuff?

Private AJ thinks that Saddam was responsible for 9/11: that's okay, because you see, in this country the military acts as a representative of the people, and it truly does not matter what Private AJ thinks. His role in casting judgement on the matter ended on the day he became a soldier.

He understands that, too; it's part of the soldier's burden. And, in fact, not looking too deeply at the big picture may well be part of Private AJ's reasoning. Nobody will ask him if it's a good idea; they'll just order him to fire, and fire he must.

To write about Private AJ without understanding that dilemma is truly to not understand, and that is part of Roy's problem.

NY Times says 42% of US thinks Hussein was responsible for 9/11: Sparky, if you review the record I think you'll find that I've often said I don't trust the NY Times on anything. Often.

(Which is one of the really amazingly stupid things about this conversation: your rabid insistence that I as an American blindly follow and swallow the mass media, cast against my fierce dislike of how the Times frames issues.)

I don't trust the Times and you do. Enough said! I've seen the Times use polls in exactly this way. The tiniest of indiscretions makes a huge difference. You can introduce bias in a poll very easily. Cast one poll against another taken six months apart. In this case you introduce the numbers as if they had anything to do with each other. It just doesn't work that way; you'll have to call each of that supposedly dim 42% and ask whether they want to go to war or not. Otherwise you're making an assumption, simply indulging in a fantasy about how the numbers are connected, creating a dopey American pro-war stereotype.

"55 percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports al-Qaida" is similar. The correct answer for most of us would be "Don't Know" -- which means you can't expect any reason from poll answers, especially if "Don't Know" wasn't one of the choices.

Well, until this morning, anyway. Here's MSNBC's story today of how shoes from a terrorist training camp in Northern Iraq tested positive tests for Botulinum and Ricin, and considered linked to al-Qaida.

http://msnbc.com/news/895185.asp

See I don't have to write a big long message here to prove Roy wrong. History will do that for us -- and look, it's already started.

[jaguar]

Well yes there are well known groups with links to Al Queda in Northern Iraq, your point? The kurds are in Northern Iraq too i don't think Saddam supports them either.

[Undertoad]

Well-known since March 5; well-denied before that.

[jaguar]

Known well before march 5, does it make a difference? They're a local group for starters, secondly their war is with the kurds, your enemy's enemy is your friend, thirdly the US trained Bin Laden.

[Undertoad]

You don't know and I don't know. It's just another point of information.

[Whit]

     Ah, good. Let's get started. I would certainly accept what the polls say if I could find them. I'm hesitant because I can't seem to confirm these numbers. Watch this, "CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and Reuters polls say 95% of the earths population think Whit is one cool bastard." You'll notice that Roy and I both gave the dates of these polls and some other specifics so that it's easy to check. Oh wait, no we didn't. But since we cited popular sources it must be acceptable. Until, we can verify these numbers I see no reason to accept them. Here's the closest thing I could find, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in540574.shtml
     You should check it out, it might clarify some actual American opinions, but UT's right I wouldn't swear by any of these. Please note the date's though.
     The Pres doesn't take a popular vote to declare war, he goes to Congress. Am I happy about it? Nope, but our men are there now. Would you suggest Viet Nam style protests and calling our soldiers names and spitting on them when they return? Screw that, they are doing their jobs. Doing them well from what I can tell. They are the one's I support, not Bush. Does he get supported by proxy? Yes. Is that good enough reason to not give support, not in my book.
     As far as taking over instead of destroying goes, you don't think we can destroy everything but the oil wells, and refineries? Or perhaps you think Americans are clamoring for a vacation in one of the palaces? Sorry, that was cheap. Point stands though, the only real value for the US offered in Iraq is the oil. Can we agree on that?

     Back to Bush then. So we should impeach him? For being unpopular? We actually have rules that say he's got to be accused of breaking our laws before he can be impeached. We call it 'Grounds for Impeachment.' 'Youthful indiscretions' and insider trading aside, because those issues have been dropped, what US laws has Bush broken? Also, is their anyone reading this that regularly reads the politics forum that is unaware that I dislike Bush? Seems unlikely, the same is true in person. I'd like to think I've made others think about how much they like Bush as well. Free speech at it's most basic.

The protests have begun even before the war, which is unprecedented. But the way the government got the public opinion by it's leach doesn't fill me with high hopes.

     As for public opinion on a leash goes, you just doubled the standard. You say we went to war against public opinion and protests, but now it controls public opinion. In fact you did it in the space of two sentences back to back. That's a bit askew. I can't really respond directly so I'll say that people don't have to like or believe in the war to believe in the men fighting it. I think this applies to your last couple of paragraphs too.

[Whit]

See I don't have to write a big long message here to prove Roy wrong. History will do that for us -- and look, it's already started.

     Aw, c'mon UT. I'm a nice guy, forgive a little will ya? Can't I be long-winded in an attempt to make someone understand my position? I do try to be brief but there's lots of idividual points I'm trying to get too...

[Count Zero]

That text on depleted uranium was way, way wrong. U-238 _does_ emit other types of radiation other than alpha. It emits beta, x-rays and gamma. It _decays_ through alpha, but it emits all the rest before that. He even says that it's half-life is huge, therefore it almost never decays and emits alpha radiation.

There's no reason to speculate on it, just check a table of nuclides:

http://t2.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/decay?200,9237

The author says then that U-238 is not very radioactive because a Geiger counter doesn't show a lot of activity. His knowledge of physics that he boasts in the text is really lacking, because Geiger counters only detect gamma and x-ray radiation (he himself said that alpha can't penetrate paper, much less enter the detector).

So that doesn't hold.

And about Saddam Hussein, well I don't think there would be a simple solution. Certainly nothing that involves sanctions that hurt the people or unilateral invasion without the consent of the world community is acceptable. Perhaps giving support for opposition movements inside Iraq? Give the means for the _people_ to fix things up? As in democracy? It would not be easy, but it would be right.

You don't have to go back to the seventies to find harmful US intervention. What about Hugo Chavez? The US supported the coup against him. It doesn't matter if you like him or not (I don't), he was democratically elected (by a wide majority). How would you feel if some other country supported a coup against Bush?

And what about the Kurdish massacre with US weapons? What about the on-going embargo on Cuba? Hey, what about Bin Laden? It's easy to continue.

The chances that both New York Times/CBS and ABC are rigged the same way on a poll which the result is unfavorable to their editorial bodies is pretty slim. But even if the figures are half as big in reality, that's still a problem, since it's possible those people would not be in favor of the war if they were informed correctly, and that could make a difference.

[Count Zero]

Originally posted by Whit
Would you suggest Viet Nam style protests and calling our soldiers names and spitting on them when they return? Screw that, they are doing their jobs. Doing them well from what I can tell. They are the one's I support, not Bush.

[...] people don't have to like or believe in the war to believe in the men fighting it.

I find this argument quite bizarre. Protesting against the war means wanting for the soldiers to stop fighting, go home and not get killed. It's not quite against them.

As far as taking over instead of destroying goes, you don't think we can destroy everything but the oil wells, and refineries? Or perhaps you think Americans are clamoring for a vacation in one of the palaces? Sorry, that was cheap. Point stands though, the only real value for the US offered in Iraq is the oil. Can we agree on that?

No, the US doesn't want only the oil. It wants control over the whole region. Israel didn't quite work out for that matter, and the US has historically craved for the middle east. Iraq is going to be it's major incision.

And about Bush, yes it's improbable there's a way to impeach him unless a really big scandal happens. But I wouldn't know.

But I certainly think that taking a passive action against him is not the right choice. That seat he's taking is too damn important. If you can't get to him directly, get to the congress.

As for public opinion on a leash goes, you just doubled the standard. You say we went to war against public opinion and protests, but now it controls public opinion. In fact you did it in the space of two sentences back to back. That's a bit askew.

The number of protests is unprecedented but it hardly amounts to the majority of the population. The so called "silent majority" (oddly enough) is the one that is currently representing the public opinion.