War on Iraq

No, it's gotten boring. This is my final reply. In fact, I have written more than enough already. Everything is up there for the careful reader.

Inaction is not an implication of indeterminacy. Different people need different amounts of information to make up their minds. I think we roughly have the same amount of information, for me that's enough. For you it is not enough. OK, it's your problem, not mine.

I don't wait to be forced to make up my mind, or to act. I am at a loss of words to describe your defeatism re the american administration. But that's liberal democracy isn't it? If I disagree with the government, I try to change things. You can wait for the next elections, and vote for the imperialist-lite party, and hope that they will change things...

You say you are sure that I am aware of what you are saying, but you miss my point by a mile.

That quote starts with, 'I'll put morality aside' which means 'let's say it is irrelevant if the war is right or wrong'. And THEN I tell you 90% of the world thinks one way, which is great opportunity for a political agent with the same opinion. They have an issue with 90% support. There are many political issues on which the population is divided 40% - 60%, but not that many on which the population is divided 90% - 10%.

90% support doesn't make an issue morally right, but it makes it a political opportunity.

Stalin did not kill people because of his faith in an ideal, he killed them because they were political opponents (most often better communists than he is), dissenters, etc. For real, practical reasons.

It was funny for me, because when I ask you 'what do YOU think' (obviously asking your personal opinion with capitals and all) you go 'well, depends if I am a neo-con or an Iraqi...' I had to resort to addressing you in third person, until you got I was talking to you! 

I don't support any and all resisters, I agree with their right to blow up occupiers, not each other. Otherwise, yes.

What is your problem with borrowing arguments? Is this an avantgard creative-writing exercise? If an argument is right, I will 'borrow' it even from the enemy. Unlike you I don't believe that I 'think independenly'. Nobody does. You either know where your ideas come from or you don't and imagine you are an independent thinker.  

My understanding is that US presence in Iraq is the principal cause of the Iraqi suffering, removing them will be the best for everyone in the short and long term. Imperialists think US presence is a stabilising factor, and it should continue, they also think this is better for everyone. You are not sure if it is stabilising or not, and say it should continue at least for the time being.

And I never said you are aware that you are an Arab-hater. 

People are smart, they can figure out themselves whether my arguments are valid or invalid. My aim is to show them that such arguments exist.

And I suspect you are beginning reluctantly to realise that you are an Arab-hater, and being unfamiliar with it, giving confused answers...

Look, you'll see it when I put it this way: On Iraq, you say that you can't make up your mind because it is very complex, and you don't have enough information on it. When it comes to my motives, you claim you know them better than I do. Is human psychology not complex? How much information do you have on me? Leave me aside, how much do you know about Beylerbeyi, who is not me, but merely my persona on this particular forum? For all you know, Beylerbeyi could be a psychological propaganda operation, and what it writes could be produced by a team, just like Stanislaw Lem.

Tut mir leid Herr Freud, but sometimes cigars are just cigars.

'Least harmful' is negative. How about a more positive/constructive aim?Also, what could be least harmful in the short run can be the most harmful in the long run. This condition is severly affected by your beloved uncertainty.

He would be on my side if he read this argument, and angry that you are using his words for your ends. You'd better pick quotes from Churchill or Hitler or such people.

I have discussed the Iraq issue in detail before. You can find it in the archives.

Baath wasn't/isn't fascist. In any case, majority of the Iraqi resistance is not islamist or fascists. You can see that violence reduces during even fake elections. In real elections without Americans, with real parties and governments, violence would be less.

Khomeini was better than the Shah. You need not support Khomeini, but you should oppose the Shah (if you claim to be anti-imperialist). I don't support Al Qaeda, but I oppose the US.

US media (and you) tell us that the resistance is formed by foreign islamists and fascists. They portray the defenders this way to criminalise and marginalise them. I say that the resisters have a right to fight against imperialist occupation. In fact, the resisters are people like you and me  (ok, maybe not you, but just me and most of the people in this forum) who would fight against imperialist occupation. People like us, i.e. 'normal' people.

I know where my opinions come from and why I hold them. Possibly better than you do, given that I don't have 'independent thinking' fantasies. You are the one repeating the dogmas of Western media's coverage of Iraq war, calling Iraqi resistance are 'fascists and islamists', and US military presence is a stabilising factor...

As I wrote before, I don't see much difference between 'neutral' people and Rumsfeld. Anyway, can you give me an idea, then, how many more years do you think you liberal sissies need until you realise that US needs to leave Iraq?

Even members of the puppet government said US should remove the troops... 

The point is Al Qaeda doesn't have support in Iraq, but it has in SA. SA support to Al Qaeda is well documented.

Don't make up 'even if's. I don't want to divide ME any further because the reason it is divided and being divided further is to allow the imperialists to rule it easier. Just like they are dividing Iraq into Shia, Kurds, Sunnis...

Ideally Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel and Jordan should join together. At least get rid of travesties such as Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, and Jordan. Kuwait and Emirates and others could also be joined together with the SA, since the British ceated these petrol-stations ee sorry, nations.  

We can never be sure. Especially of the long term. It is simply impossible. So according to you, we should never act.

If I thought that communists were supporting something that I found immoral or unsubstantiated, I would not have called myself a communist, or I would have mentioned that exception.

It doesn't take precedent. You are confusing style and content. I make up my mind, and I present them in a calculated manner.

Let's imagine you (i.e. Halevi) have come to the same conclusion with me, that US presence in Iraq is adding to the Iraqi suffering. You don't need to be left wing, but let's say, like me you believe that people should act for just political causes, and not stay silent. Let's say that you have some idea of the basics of political discourse and propaganda.

What would you have written?

Sure, shoot...

Not quite sure what you mean here, but im interested, so please elaborate if you dont mind...

You've completely misunderstood me. The need is not delusional... the need is a totally natural product of our highly developed brains, given the often perceived unfriendliness/indifference of the the universe ... needing to reconcile this reality in a reassuring way is absolutely the norm

The question is how we go about making that reconciliation... it almost invariably involves some sort of self-delusion (belief in a god/reincarnation/etc are just some examples... there are plenty more... we atheists engage in this too, in different ways... eg trying to bulid up our own significance/deny our mortality, trying to assign some moral meaning to the universe, even though there isn't any, etc. ... don t take it so personally, Seko!)

... also, just because we practice self-delusion (some to a greater, or less self-aware, extent than others) doesn't make us 'crazy' or 'stupid' etc. ... Its just a revealing insight into how humanity tends to deal, psychologically, with the challenges of the world.   Relax, Seko.   Its okay.

I'm using the following definition of 'delusion': "a false belief or opinion."  No more, no less. Relax, dude ... im not making a personal attack on your state of 'mental health'.

So, back to the topic, if i dont have 'faith' in the same belief as you, to me, it's (most likely) a 'delusion'. Pure and simple.

Once again, that doesnt  mean youre crazy or mentally challenged, in my books.

For instance, I believe, to a pretty high degree, that there is absolutely no meaning or purpose to the universe, apart from what we subjectively ascribe to it.

I also doubt there was a 'beginning' or an 'end' to existence.

I think these are just examples of how our human brain cannot easily comprehend concepts it was not evolutionarily pressed to comprehend. 

I have 'faith', if you will, in the ultimate meaninglessness of everything, and that our need to proscribe 'meaning' and 'purpose' is just an interesting byproduct of the evolutionary process.

I bet you don't agree. (Maybe you do! Which would be awsome... but i doubt it...)

Feel free, therefore, to call my belief a 'delusion'. I dont care.

I think im right... although i dont, and cant, know for sure.  Im okay with that. ... once again... relax dude...  why do you think your gut reaction is to get so defensive?

Good. Im glad we're agreeing here re: predictive abilities. So, *why* do you press ahead with a hard-fast, black-white type policy, even though you're aware it could very well cause more damage in the long run, not less?  Why not fully accept the implications of indeterminacy? Im not looking for a "because my role is to shock people" answer. Im looking for why Beylerbeyi is telling this to *himself*.

When forced to, yes. You're not in Iraq. You're not in the American administratoin. What's forcing you to render an absolutist judgment, Beylerbeyi? ... there must be something, there, urging you to express these views even though your admitted degree of certainty is low...

Around 80-90% of people, globally, probably believe in a 'higher power', too. But you and i know thats (most likely) due to their deep-rooted psychological need to delude themselves as to how the world works. Truth is not always found in the herd. Im sure youre aware of this.

Some good that did. 6 million of my people, and many many millions of others still died. I dont even need to get into how many people 'communism' killed in the USSR and China, largely due to a few ideologues' blind faith in an imagined ideal.   Whats more important to you, Beylerbeyi, an imagined political ideal, or real peoples' actual suffering?

(Im aware that western imperialism and colonialism have also likely killed millions. This isnt an "us/them" argument.)

Probably because youre not used to thinking this way. But, believe me, human perceptions and actions are hugely dependent on our situation and perceived identity/kinship-ties.

You know who you are, don't ask me. OK, I'll ask this way, what would Halevi do? Anyway, those questions are related (what do you think and what do you do).

What would Halevi do if what?

So.... just to be clear... based on your understanding of this highly complex situation, youve decided opposing US occupation by supporting any and all of the various insurgent/opposition groups is clearly the best moral choice? 

OK.  If so, justify that to me without using blatantly borrowed ideological arguments. Justify it to me as one concerned human being to another.

Oh.   Really?   I didnt say you were aware of it.  =)

As an ends in and of itself? If thats the case, how come we're having a seemingly rational argument?

So you're only saying these things to fulfill a pre-prescribed role, and so that people will find you believable, regardless of the validity of your argument?  Do you really mean to say that?

Maybe you do... that would be remarkably and commendably candid... but, if thats the case, then theres really no point in engaging you in a rational argument, is there? ... that would be a shame, as im having fun...

..i suspect that you're beginning to, very reluctantly, look inward at your own motivations... but are unfamiliar with what you're seeing, and are giving confused answers as a result...     

really, Beylerbeyi... why do you think you're saying what you're saying?? Whats driving your committment to these ideas?   ... im interested!

Yes. I think you've misinterpreted the irony of the quote. =)

Those are not mutually contradictory statements. Not in the least. This is precisely my point.    

Maybe you (subconsciously?) value your self-described identity as a 'political operative' above a pursuit of the truth... or an acceptance of the difficulty in determining the 'truth'.   

See what im getting at?

Ah... now we're getting somewhere.   What *is* the optimal condition for you... and, more importantly, why?

No, not at all.   Moreover, im talking about least harmful in the *long* run.. (as long as possible). You may have misinterpreted that to mean least harmful right at the moment. My bad, if so.

Excellent point.

Im not. Im using his quotes to make the case for humility in one's moral judgments.

If you were to say "i have no idea what course of action will be best in the long run, but, given the information i have at the moment, i think choice A is most advisable for the following reasons: B, C, D, E, etc..."

...rather than "Its a clear choice. Either youre with us or against us. Its that simple."

... then we'd like be on more common ground, and i think Russell would approve...    if thats important to you.

Those of my own happiness first, then that of my family/friends, then that of humanity.  I generally want to minimize the amount of suffering globally, with particular relative concern for those close to me, of course (the ultimate human falliability).

I consider the former Ba'ath party to have been fairly facist. To my knowledge, many Ba'ath loyalists (most of whom are also Sunnis) are engaged in the insurgency, along with numerous other groups,  each with a slightly different agenda.

You seem to be saying that, back in the late 1970s, i should have supported Khomeini and his cadre, just because they too, along with the Communist Tudeh party, wanted to overthrow the Shah.  But, I could have supported the communists' agenda, without supporting a mass mobilization on religious grounds, and thus not have been responsible for the Islamic Revolution and the subsequent imposition of a brutal theocracy, in place of a brutal monarchy.  The subtleties matter!!

Hahah. Wtf? I think they're all pretty much 'normal'... Whats that supposed to mean?

Are you really thinking independently (whatever that means)?

It means making an utmost effort to reflect on my own opinions, and why i hold them, rather than blindly repeat and advocate those of others.

I do not have enough knowledge of the situation on the ground to make a decent decision one way or the other. Thats exactly my point.  

If *forced* to make a decision for the US (as in, if someone put a gun to my head), i'd probably say, "yes, the US should withdraw, preferrably doing all they can to safeguard the future fate of the Iraqi civilians... but im only saying this because you have a gun to my head... i dont have much confidence in this judgment, and would have preferred to remain neutral on the issue until privy to more details."

Alternatively, id like to hear what a majority of Iraqis want. I think they're (likely) in a better position to quantify/predict their current and future suffering, given a series of possible scenarios, than i am. I would most likely defer to them.

So your plan is 'let's wait and see'. Which means, 'US military can continue what they are doing now'. Which means 'no plans for pulling out'. You say 'US should leave when Iraq is stable', so does Rumsfeld. Where's your difference?

No, my plan is not 'lets wait and see'. My point is that im no position to *make* a plan.

No, seriously. Who's we? Or, if you insist on the STNG analogy... whos the borg, in this case... and why have you submitted your will to them?

SA. But saying SA therefore supports Al Qaeda is like saying the Spanish govt therefore supports ETA.  Ibn laden wants to see the collapse of the Saudi government.

Absolutely. We agree here.

Even if that meant more death and destruction than a fracturing of current borders? Why?

Interesting. Which ones and why?

Cool.

Excellent point.   Let me be clearer:  if you think you can stop a greater suffering, by inflicting a lesser one... do it.  Just be sure. I want to hear how you arrived at your conclusion/quantification.

I wrote that to show that I am perfectly capable of attributing fictitious 'personal psychological reasons' to explain your line of reasoning. I am not doing that, because I take you seriously, I assume your argument has basis in rational thought, rather than 'personal feelings'. It breaks my heart that you don't return the favour.

Im going to go out on a limb here again, and assert that *both* of our arguments stem from a combination of rational reasoning, and personal psychological motivations.  All im advocating is awareness of these, which you have thus far refused to accept..       Why is that, do you suppose?

Good. Why? ... Moreover, is your identity as a 'communist' more important than whether communist logic forces you to espouse an unsubstantiated or immoral view?

Both, plus a great big dollop of very astute observation and rationality. No more, no less.  I'm equally suceptible to these things, but i try to be aware of them.

Thats a pretty good argument. I could say precisely the same.

BINGO.   Thanks for being candid. ... So, Beylerbeyi, whats the purpose and, more importantly, why does that purpose take precedent over the accuracy of your (stated) views?

Yes, of course. Thats essentially been my point.  My question to you is, why are you committed to that political agenda?  Moreover, why is your committment to that agenda more important for you than making an accurate statement? Im sure you have good reasons. Id like to hear them.

We are borg. We don't have self-reflections. Even if we had we would never reveal them to strangers in an internet forum full of nerds.

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi In situations like that I tend to act.

May I ask how you are taking action now?

Just to get this strait. Eveyone, CLAM DOWN!!! This topic is an opinion topic, but if everyone is harassing each other, then don't bother typing on this topic. Please keep this apropriot. I don't want anyone to insult each other. This is a topic on what we belive what is happening in Iraq.I hope some of these post are not true.

Beylerbeyi

Will you be OK with a Kurdistan?

Dont act neive, it will happen if Amnerica leaves. The Kurds have no reason to be apart of an arabic nation.