response to Unabomber's critique on leftists?

[Ken]

i wont post a transcript because that would just invoke reactionary responses... hehe reactionary... funny word...

so reply if you've read Modern Industrial Society and its Future and have a response.

i agree with his critique for the most part. leftism in universities today is almost a psychological condition.

[bcbm]

Yeah, maybe we should all send bombs to low-level tech folks from a cabin in the woods. Post a link at least, I'm too lazy to hunt down that bullshit myself.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Wait, we're talking about this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski

Are any of us really supposed to legitimize the rantings of a lunatic afraid that technology would end human toil and create a society of boredom? :laugh:

[Ken]

Yeah, maybe we should all send bombs to low-level tech folks from a cabin in the woods. Post a link at least, I'm too lazy to hunt down that bullshit myself.

i have a better idea! its called dont reply!

[bcbm]

i have a better idea! its called dont reply!

Well, I did actually bother to track it down on my own (no thanks to you) and the end result was a bit lacking. I've read the "manifesto" before and it didn't get any better with this reintroduction.

In general, TK seems to be attacking a rather small minority on "the left," that being the post-modernists and liberals, who are arguably not even a "leftist" trend at all. Most leftists do not reject or subscribe to any of the things he attributes to them. Beyond that, I don't buy into the psychological motivations he uses to support his assertions. I would argue that it is more typical of the far-right to have feelings of inferiority and oppose things like rationality, etc.

[shorelinetrance]

Wait, we're talking about this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski

Are any of us really supposed to legitimize the rantings of a lunatic afraid that technology would end human toil and create a society of boredom? :laugh:

plenty of anarcho primitivists use it as a manfesito.

[Zurdito]

my response is that he was insane.

[bcbm]

plenty of anarcho primitivists use it as a manfesito.

Clarify "plenty." Most I've met either haven't read it and vaguely identify with TK due to his prominence as an anti-civ prisoner, or reject him completely. I mean, come on, even Green Anarchy denounces the guy as a kook.


my response is that he was insane.

A bit of an ad hominem. While I disagree with his conclusions and methods, I don't think it is fair to say his analysis is completely without merit.

[shorelinetrance]

Clarify "plenty." Most I've met either haven't read it and vaguely identify with TK due to his prominence as an anti-civ prisoner, or reject him completely. I mean, come on, even Green Anarchy denounces the guy as a kook.
I admit, plenty was a poor choice of words but from the research I've done about anarcho-primitivism, some if not many, draw ideas and conclusions from aforementioned text.

[Dean]

To shrug him off as insane is a mistake. Kaczynski was distinctly a product of U.S. hyper-nationalism. In his anti-liberal manifesto, he jumps between an intense striving for individual freedom and an extreme paranoia of social change in general. He even lays out a fairly coherent concept of freedom, which he attempts to relate to this suspicion of change. What results is a schizophrenic manifesto distinctly relating the dynamic that exists among the U.S. fetishism of the state, freedom and the cultural fear of change. Kaczynski manages to lay bare the most obvious discrepancies in nationalist propaganda while failing to put the pieces together, despite their obvious fit.

[Bud Struggle]

To shrug him off as insane is a mistake. Kaczynski was distinctly a product of U.S. hyper-nationalism. In his anti-liberal manifesto, he jumps between an intense striving for individual freedom and an extreme paranoia of social change in general. He even lays out a fairly coherent concept of freedom, which he attempts to relate to this suspicion of change. What results is a schizophrenic manifesto distinctly relating the dynamic that exists among the U.S. fetishism of the state, freedom and the cultural fear of change. Kaczynski manages to lay bare the most obvious discrepancies in nationalist propaganda while failing to put the pieces together, despite their obvious fit.


Kaczynski is to American Conservatism what Pol Pot is to Communism. Kaczynski is no more or less insane than Pol Pot.

[bcbm]

I admit, plenty was a poor choice of words but from the research I've done about anarcho-primitivism, some if not many, draw ideas and conclusions from aforementioned text.

Some primitivists may flirt with his ideas but, then, a number of his ideas have been written about (much better) elsewhere by other authors falling under the "green anarchist" sort of milieu. In my experience, its just been people trying to seem radical by supporting him without having a real understanding of his work or ideas.

[Dean]

Kaczynski is to American Conservatism what Pol Pot is to Communism. Kaczynski is no more or less insane than Pol Pot.

It's funny how easy it is to dismiss people as "insane" when they commit some of the worst acts in history. Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were insane, sure. But now what? What about Mao? GWB? Clinton? John Howard? Thatcher? What kind of depravity or death is required before we stop using social and political responses to these people, and start using vague psychological inferences to dismiss their legacies?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I read it a while ago. My main critique would be that he is a complete fucking nutjob (no wait, that's my conclusion).

[Ken]

i reckon calling for the abolition of technology is about as crazy as the ideas of any communist. the difference between Ted and random pick of high school communist is that he chose to act on his beliefs. instead of sitting around in discussion groups, marching or demonstrating, he lived primitively, wrote his manifesto, and killed people.

(not to say that he didnt march or demonstrate, but his actions were ultimately more revolutionary than the previous)


Kaczynski is to American Conservatism what Pol Pot is to Communism. Kaczynski is no more or less insane than Pol Pot.

You think so? Is there an indelible line dividing sanity from insanity... Or do they change, one into the other at the slightest change of events? We'll find out soon enough. If the world itself is insane.

(cowboy bebop quote!)


Some primitivists may flirt with his ideas but, then, a number of his ideas have been written about (much better) elsewhere by other authors falling under the "green anarchist" sort of milieu. In my experience, its just been people trying to seem radical by supporting him without having a real understanding of his work or ideas.

Industrial Society and Its Future was for me a gateway to Zerzan. its not overly complex and isnt meant to be. the only thing i dislike about it is the lack of emotion and apathy it reads.

[bcbm]

i reckon calling for the abolition of technology is about as crazy as the ideas of any communist.

How is the idea that workers can manage their own affairs and live in a free, egalitarian society in any way comparable to wanting to destroy all of industrial society and murder billions of people?

[Black Dagger]

the difference between Ted and random pick of high school communist is that he chose to act on his beliefs. instead of sitting around in discussion groups, marching or demonstrating, he lived primitively, wrote his manifesto, and killed people

You say that like it's a good thing :confused:

'Yeah, stupid commies posers! Stop sitting on your arses sipping lattes and start shooting crapitalists~!' :lol:

Except that a necessary part of communist activity is out-reach - discussion groups, public events like marches and demonstrations etc. are all ordinary facets of political work and a part of communist praxis (though i suppose you've gotta a better understanding of that than most here).

[Ken]

You say that like it's a good thing :confused:

'Yeah, stupid commies posers! Stop sitting on your arses sipping lattes and start shooting crapitalists~!' :lol:

Except that a necessary part of communist activity is out-reach - discussion groups, public events like marches and demonstrations etc. are all ordinary facets of political work and a part of communist praxis (though i suppose you've gotta a better understanding of that than most here).

im sorry but communism isnt exactly at its peak right now. capitalist indoctrination on the other hand, is at an all time high :D

if you want to out-reach- then sipping lattes wont do you any good.

[Bud Struggle]

It's funny how easy it is to dismiss people as "insane" when they commit some of the worst acts in history. Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were insane, sure. But now what? What about Mao? GWB? Clinton? John Howard? Thatcher? What kind of depravity or death is required before we stop using social and political responses to these people, and start using vague psychological inferences to dismiss their legacies?

There's a difference between wholesale mass murders for the hell of it and people who's policies you don't like. I'm agree that people died because of the policies of all of these characters--but some like Pol Pot killed for no real reason--and some like Bush or Clinton did so because of political expediency.

Bush and Clinton killed not because they had any real desire to do so, personally--they killed because we "the American People" asked them to do so--so we could keep up our standard of living.

[Black Dagger]

if you want to out-reach- then sipping lattes wont do you any good.

I agree... I think you completely missed my point, forget it.

[Dean]

There's a difference between wholesale mass murders for the hell of it and people who's policies you don't like. I'm agree that people died because of the policies of all of these characters--but some like Pol Pot killed for no real reason--and some like Bush or Clinton did so because of political expediency.
What about Leopold II? He killed about 8 million locals specifically to make a profit. Does his reasoning absolve such mass murder?

Interestingly, Pol Pot did have a reason for his killings - he believed that the middle class (urbanites, more accurately) stood between the peasant class and emancipation. So Pol Pot seems to have had a much more humanist goal in mind.


Bush and Clinton killed not because they had any real desire to do so, personally--they killed because we "the American People" asked them to do so--so we could keep up our standard of living.Really? I don't recall any Americans asking for Iraqis to be killed, and especially not civilians. Afghanistan, Panama, Serbia, Grenada, Laos, Vietnam?

Does the intense and wide-scale killing of innocents leave the realm of "insanity" just because people live more comfortably (supposedly) as a result? Is that really where you draw the line? I tend to think that value judgments with conclusions favoring profit over human life indicate a pretty distinct sociopathy.

[Bud Struggle]

What about Leopold II? He killed about 8 million locals specifically to make a profit. Does his reasoning absolve such mass murder? And you don't think there is something mentally wrong with someone who kills 8 million people for his personal gain.


Interestingly, Pol Pot did have a reason for his killings - he believed that the middle class (urbanites, more accurately) stood between the peasant class and emancipation. So Pol Pot seems to have had a much more humanist goal in mind.Well, he was misinformed, I guess.


Really? I don't recall any Americans asking for Iraqis to be killed, and especially not civilians. Afghanistan, Panama, Serbia, Grenada, Laos, Vietnam? Some civilians have been killed--and that is definitely a bad thing, BUT it's the Presiden't job to keep up the American standard of living--that's why we elect him. GWB got elected TWICE--that wasn't by accident. Do you think Gore would have done much different? How about McCain? Or even Obama. We have these leaders because they give us what we want.

We want ourstandard of living. We want big houses and cars and inexpensive gas. We want jobs and a good economy--and if we have to go to war now and then that's what we have to do. We have there guys as presidents and Senators, etc--because they reflect us--in our needs and our wants. And they are damn good at their job. They keep you and me living in the style that we are acustomed to.

And actually these guys are doing more for you than for me. I already got mine. If gas was $20 a gallon--I wouldn't like it, but it really wouldn't matter. Guys like you would starve. You and a lot of America would go "third world." And believe me, there wouldn't be a Revolution--there would be another election and they'd elect another Reagan to get things back to normal again.



Does the intense and wide-scale killing of innocents leave the realm of "insanity" just because people live more comfortably (supposedly) as a result? Is that really where you draw the line? I tend to think that value judgments with conclusions favoring profit over human life indicate a pretty distinct sociopathy.

So the thing is, nobody REALLY cares about Iraq or Iran or anyplace else--and nobody's interested in killing people there, if they just don't bother us. Unfortunately, these places arent just innocent countries--they on occasion get infested with the Talaban or Saddam's or whomever and that gets in our way. We certainly weren't interested in afganistan until 9/11. They bombed us--we wack them back.

Saddam was an issue--I'm not too sanguine about us invading there--and it was a mistake. But all we really wanted was a simple regime change. We will be happy to have a stable government there and we'll be happy to pay for their oil--they just need to calm down a bit.

[Dean]

And you don't think there is something mentally wrong with someone who kills 8 million people for his personal gain.
I think there is. However, I don't see how the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq (shock and awe) is not indicative of socipathy.


Some civilians have been killed--and that is definitely a bad thing, BUT it's the Presiden't job to keep up the American standard of living--that's why we elect him. GWB got elected TWICE--that wasn't by accident. Do you think Gore would have done much different? How about McCain? Or even Obama. We have these leaders because they give us what we want.
Some? These are not small numbers. Not that it matters much, of course.

In regards to the elections, I don't ever recall people talking about invading Iraq until the administration suggested it. How is it something the U.S. people want when most don't support the war, and [i]none considered it at all until the administration did? If anything, peopel wanted it because they were told that it was necessary. That is hardly the citizens' choice, clearly it shows that those few who support the war only do so out of blind nationalism.


We want ourstandard of living. We want big houses and cars and inexpensive gas. We want jobs and a good economy--and if we have to go to war now and then that's what we have to do. We have there guys as presidents and Senators, etc--because they reflect us--in our needs and our wants. And they are damn good at their job. They keep you and me living in the style that we are acustomed to.
Unfortunately, the Iraq war costs more for the U.S. people than the oil that is being attained. That's not counting the countless lives lost, of course.


And actually these guys are doing more for you than for me. I already got mine. If gas was $20 a gallon--I wouldn't like it, but it really wouldn't matter. Guys like you would starve. You and a lot of America would go "third world." And believe me, there wouldn't be a Revolution--there would be another election and they'd elect another Reagan to get things back to normal again.
This isn't keeping gas cheap. In fact, it has ruined the export potential of Irag and soured relations with OPEC - not to mention the rising gas prices in the last 5 years.


So the thing is, nobody REALLY cares about Iraq or Iran or anyplace else--and nobody's interested in killing people there, if they just don't bother us. Unfortunately, these places arent just innocent countries--they on occasion get infested with the Talaban or Saddam's or whomever and that gets in our way. We certainly weren't interested in afganistan until 9/11. They bombed us--we wack them back.
What? The U.S. has had interests in Afghanistan dating back to the 1970s. And a vast majority of the military action by the U.S. in that region has been unprovoked protectionism or politics. Saddam was useful when he was killing more of his people - his uselessness was a result of his refusal to act beholden to U.S. interests. Why not invade Saudi Arabia or Egypt if the U.S. is so interested in freedom?


Saddam was an issue--I'm not too sanguine about us invading there--and it was a mistake. But all we really wanted was a simple regime change. We will be happy to have a stable government there and we'll be happy to pay for their oil--they just need to calm down a bit.
Calm down? Saddam created one of the most inclusive, stable regimes in the region. Unlike Israel or Iran, people can and did practice their religions and customs where and how they wanted there. As I pointed out before, there are a lot of other regimes which are or were more unstable, anti-western and oppressive than Iraq. The interest was the benefit of big oil, security firms and western capital. That is all, and its pretty clear.

[danyboy27]

I think there is. However, I don't see how the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq (shock and awe) is not indicative of socipathy.

hundred, maybe a thousand where killed during that campaign, but not that much. other civilian casualities happened during the occupation, and a large number are dirrectly linked to the civil war and to alquaeida. ok, that beccause the us got there this happened, but force to admit that religious fanatinism have to share its part of the massacer.




Unfortunately, the Iraq war costs more for the U.S. people than the oil that is being attained. That's not counting the countless lives lost, of course.
.
he got a point



What? The U.S. has had interests in Afghanistan dating back to the 1970s. And a vast majority of the military action by the U.S. in that region has been unprovoked protectionism or politics. Saddam was useful when he was killing more of his people - his uselessness was a result of his refusal to act beholden to U.S. interests. Why not invade Saudi Arabia or Egypt if the U.S. is so interested in freedom?


he never said the us governement did it for freedom, he said they did it beccause the american people wanted oil.



I
Calm down? Saddam created one of the most inclusive, stable regimes in the region. Unlike Israel or Iran, people can and did practice their religions and customs where and how they wanted there. As I pointed out before, there are a lot of other regimes which are or were more unstable, anti-western and oppressive than Iraq. The interest was the benefit of big oil, security firms and western capital. That is all, and its pretty clear.

saddam was stable, but i doubt his son UDAY, who enjoyed torturing the iraqi football team, randomly raping women and killing army officier beccause they didnt wanted to dance with their wives. i would have been worried to see that guy rulling Iraq.

[Dean]

hundred, maybe a thousand where killed during that campaign, but not that much. other civilian casualities happened during the occupation, and a large number are dirrectly linked to the civil war and to alquaeida. ok, that beccause the us got there this happened, but force to admit that religious fanatinism have to share its part of the massacer.
Are you kidding me? The most conservative estimates, which rely on collected data for each death, say that it is at least 6600. Morgue statistics imlpy that it was something like 300,000.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
This site has CSV files of all individual deaths and instances reported by major news sources. You can see that between march 19 and april 3rd, thousands of deaths are reported as a result of bombing alone, and countless others ambiguous, various, reported civilian death, unexploded ordinances, &c.. By far, the largest source of civilian death during the "major military activities" are U.S. and coalition forces, counting in the thousands - and this is just the verified casualties.

Religious fanatacism has nothing to do with it. Do you even know what shock and awe was?


he never said the us governement did it for freedom, he said they did it beccause the american people wanted oil.
No, he said that it was in the interests of the U.S. people, for oil, and "what the people want."


saddam was stable, but i doubt his son UDAY, who enjoyed torturing the iraqi football team, randomly raping women and killing army officier beccause they didnt wanted to dance with their wives. i would have been worried to see that guy rulling Iraq.
The point was to counter the claim that the U.S. invasion was a response to "craziness." It is and always has been about capital.

Why don't you piss off and stop making these childish assertions about issues you are clearly ignorant of? Your knowledge of the Iraq war and middle eastern history imply that you were either livign in a cave or an infant during the war. Please read up before defending the shitty western world and its moral failings.

[danyboy27]

Are you kidding me? The most conservative estimates, which rely on collected data for each death, say that it is at least 6600. Morgue statistics imlpy that it was something like 300,000.

i know what was shock and awe, it was the bombing campaing conductred by the us airforces on iraqi installations.

perhaps YOU mislead official death count and estimations made by some expert that stayed in their confortable office during the massacer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html

ESTIMATES, all projection, estimates, nothing accurate, only suppositions.

Casualties

A dossier released by Iraq Body Count (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count), a project of the UK non-governmental non-violent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-violent) and disarmament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament) organization Oxford Research Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Research_Group) attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the actions of US-led forces during the "invasion phase", including the Shock and Awe bombing campaign on Baghdad.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#cite_note-19)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Doctrine_of_rapid_dominance

and this is not a bias, this is a ANTIWAR group that made that project, that cathalog names, ages and profession of all deaths.

600 000 is a plausible count, if you add ALL civilian death reGardless of who did it, but for the initial invasion, 300 000 civilian death is just mad, i know laser guided missiles are shit but that just fucking too much.

perhaps i was wronG to think you would not pay attention to the body count beccause i presumed that, has a communist you valued the life of all peoples precious and that at the end you would have replied that it dosnt matter the number and that even fewers death still a tragedy but eh.

[Dean]

i know what was shock and awe, it was the bombing campaing conductred by the us airforces on iraqi installations.

perhaps YOU mislead official death count and estimations made by some expert that stayed in their confortable office during the massacer.
And I'm to understand that you are or ever were on the ground in Iraq?


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html

ESTIMATES, all projection, estimates, nothing accurate, only suppositions.
Estimates, because the U.S. military actively refuses to collect data on civilian casulaties in this war.


Casualties

A dossier released by Iraq Body Count (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count), a project of the UK non-governmental non-violent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-violent) and disarmament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament) organization Oxford Research Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Research_Group) attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the actions of US-led forces during the "invasion phase", including the Shock and Awe bombing campaign on Baghdad.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#cite_note-19)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Doctrine_of_rapid_dominance

and this is not a bias, this is a ANTIWAR group that made that project, that cathalog names, ages and profession of all deaths.
Right, the group that I reference in my post, which oyu conveniently ignored.


600 000 is a plausible count, if you add ALL civilian death reGardless of who did it, but for the initial invasion, 300 000 civilian death is just mad, i know laser guided missiles are shit but that just fucking too much.
I assume you mean 6600. As in, the number in my post, the number you qouted me as saying. In any case, yo uhave only used Wikipedia - I posted a link to that same group, who speculate that 87,600 to 95,600 have been killed so far. And whose CSV tables clearly show data verified by well-known, west-leaning news sources.

Also, laser guided missles were a small part of the arsenal. Cluster bombs and shells, the former of which is known - and meant - to be very non-specific and broad hitting, on top of being illegal for use in by 200 nations. Not for the U.S. or Israel, of coruse, who refuse to sign such treaties meant to reduce civilian casualties.


perhaps i was wronG to think you would not pay attention to the body count beccause i presumed that, has a communist you valued the life of all peoples precious and that at the end you would have replied that it dosnt matter the number and that even fewers death still a tragedy but eh.
As I poitned out in my post to TomK, the numbers don't really matter. It is the means and the intentions which really decide if you are being rationally defensive or if you are a sociopath. You have failed to address these simple questions, and you act indignant about, of all things, the issue we both agree is philosophically irrelevant - the numbers. However, it is very interesting to note that you are condemning me for carign about the numbers when they don't matter that much, when your first point against me was that my numbers were inaccurate. If you held human life as valuable as us communists do, I suspect you would share the view that the specific numbers are irrelevant, contrary to your claim against my data, and your very disgusting attempt to blame the Iraqi people for their own deaths resulting from social and economic instability. So classy!

However, I admit that I misquoted my source. I think the documentary had actually speculated that it was 30,000. I would be very surprised if you were willing to admit that your "hundred, maybe a thousand where killed during that campaign" was completely off.

Why do you give lip-service to the moral upstandign of communism when you spend so much time trying to apologize for the shameful targetting of civilians by the U.S. military?

[danyboy27]

And I'm to understand that you are or ever were on the ground in Iraq?

/quote]

no, but you probably been there right?


[quote=Dean;1245567]

Right, the group that I reference in my post, which oyu conveniently ignored.



i didnt ignored them, i checked your source, and saw they where accurates to what i was actually believing, in one of your last post, perhaps i misread, you told, 300 000 people where dead due to the initial invasion, your source says 6 000, with a big 92 000 official deaths.


to end it, i was just thinking that there was error in your post, and i tried to help. hey, i am against that war too, i am not jacking off about this tragedy, i dont minimize it, and i dont give neither to capitlism or communism the moral upstand, i strongly believe that the us would have invaded Iraq, no matter if he would have been communist or capitalist.
I dont like hegemony at all, but lets face it, its not a Question of ideology, hegemony happen in all systems, when its not for money its for strategic control of the ressources, if not for the ressources itself.

having a communist country dosnt mean that your politicians are smarter than the ones that rules capitalist countries, it just mean you have a different system.

[Dean]

[quote=Dean;1245567]And I'm to understand that you are or ever were on the ground in Iraq?

/quote]

no, but you probably been there right?
No, but I never ascribed importance to that, Flame removed.




to end it, i was just thinking that there was error in your post, and i tried to help. hey, i am against that war too, i am not jacking off about this tragedy, i dont minimize it, and i dont give neither to capitlism or communism the moral upstand, i strongly believe that the us would have invaded Iraq, no matter if he would have been communist or capitalist.
I dont like hegemony at all, but lets face it, its not a Question of ideology, hegemony happen in all systems, when its not for money its for strategic control of the ressources, if not for the ressources itself.

having a communist country dosnt mean that your politicians are smarter than the ones that rules capitalist countries, it just mean you have a different system.And this is why you attempted to blame the Iraqis for their own deaths? Flame removed.

[danyboy27]

[quote=spetnaz21;1245707]
No, but I never ascribed importance to that, you dumb fuck.

then why did you asked me if i have been there if it was so unimportant then?





[quote=spetnaz21;1245707]
And this is why you attempted to blame the Iraqis for their own deaths? You truly sicken me.

i never blamed them for their own death, i just said that terror attack, sectarian violence and us bombing where an ensemble of causes of their death.
also, not all suicide attack or sectarian killing are carried by iraqi some of them are dirrectly sponsored by terror organization, some bad stuff are made by neigboring countries, and some bad stuff have been made by the us troops.

the us governement have a huuge responsability in all this mess beccause they caused it, and they did it all wrong from the start, beccause they lacked of confidence after the toppling of the regime, beccause they disbanded the iraqi army, beccause they didnt listened to their general recomandinG more preparations before to go.

extremists in Iraq are probably around 5 or 10% of the population, so no i dont blame them, not at all for having a tiny minority of fucked up people, its not like they had the choice of that factor, and so far they(the iraqi) are doing everything they can to stop this shit.

and stop insulting me, i never called you anything so far and you told i was an idiot and a dumb fuck several times, calm down man you dont have any reason to insult me, i think its possible to discuss quietly, and i seriously think that you are well aware of the situation in Iraq to find flawless arguments against mine that will prove your point, you dont need to insult me to win you know, i can admit that i have been wrong, i COULD be wrong, i dont know everything.

[Dean]

[quote=Dean;1245757]
then why did you asked me if i have been there if it was so unimportant then?
What the fuck? Flame removed.







i never blamed them for their own death, i just said that terror attack, sectarian violence and us bombing where an ensemble of causes of their death.
also, not all suicide attack or sectarian killing are carried by iraqi some of them are dirrectly sponsored by terror organization, some bad stuff are made by neigboring countries, and some bad stuff have been made by the us troops.

the us governement have a huuge responsability in all this mess beccause they caused it, and they did it all wrong from the start, beccause they lacked of confidence after the toppling of the regime, beccause they disbanded the iraqi army, beccause they didnt listened to their general recomandinG more preparations before to go.

extremists in Iraq are probably around 5 or 10% of the population, so no i dont blame them, not at all for having a tiny minority of fucked up people, its not like they had the choice of that factor, and so far they(the iraqi) are doing everything they can to stop this shit.

and stop insulting me, i never called you anything so far and you told i was an idiot and a dumb fuck several times, calm down man you dont have any reason to insult me, i think its possible to discuss quietly, and i seriously think that you are well aware of the situation in Iraq to find flawless arguments against mine that will prove your point, you dont need to insult me to win you know, i can admit that i have been wrong, i COULD be wrong, i dont know everything.

If you don't want to be insulted, don't start apologizing for western aggression, and if you do, at least come up with decent arguments or get your facts right. I simply have tolerance for this kind of trash, and when the purveyor of this filth exhibits such ignorance, it is all the more frustrating.

Also, don't bring up issues and then dodge their conclusion by saying that "it doesn't matter anyways." You have done this twice: with the "comfy office" comment and the refutation of statistics. You have also called into question my own ethical standing by nature of the fact that "I was concerned with specific numbers" when it was you who brought that into question in the first place! Your stances are ridiculous and your arguments are pitiful.

[Bud Struggle]

I think there is. However, I don't see how the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq (shock and awe) is not indicative of socipathy. Look Dean, I don't want to get in the position of defending America's invasion of Iraq--it's something that I don't and never have agreed with. BUT it was presented to the American people as a reasonable (though one I disagreed with) plan of action.



In regards to the elections, I don't ever recall people talking about invading Iraq until the administration suggested it. How is it something the U.S. people want when most don't support the war, and [i]none considered it at all until the administration did? If anything, peopel wanted it because they were told that it was necessary. That is hardly the citizens' choice, clearly it shows that those few who support the war only do so out of blind nationalism. NOW they don't want it--but at the time there was a good deal of war sentiment in the United States as I remember. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted for it--to give you an indication.



Unfortunately, the Iraq war costs more for the U.S. people than the oil that is being attained. That's not counting the countless lives lost, of course. It was a bad move, as I said.



This isn't keeping gas cheap. In fact, it has ruined the export potential of Irag and soured relations with OPEC - not to mention the rising gas prices in the last 5 years. It is cheap compared to the rest of the world. No one is suffering that much.



What? The U.S. has had interests in Afghanistan dating back to the 1970s. And a vast majority of the military action by the U.S. in that region has been unprovoked protectionism or politics. Saddam was useful when he was killing more of his people - his uselessness was a result of his refusal to act beholden to U.S. interests. Why not invade Saudi Arabia or Egypt if the U.S. is so interested in freedom? The US is interested in the interests of the US--there's no denying that. When Saddam was useful than he was all right--when he stopped being useful, some thought it was alright to take him out. Again, not what I would have done--but the main job of the President is to protect and defend American interests around the world--Bush saw a need to do this in Iraq. I disagree, but I see why he invaded. Now the war turned into a bigger mess than anyone could have forseen, but if it was handled properly--it might have been a lot less damaging.



Calm down? Saddam created one of the most inclusive, stable regimes in the region. Unlike Israel or Iran, people can and did practice their religions and customs where and how they wanted there. As I pointed out before, there are a lot of other regimes which are or were more unstable, anti-western and oppressive than Iraq. The interest was the benefit of big oil, security firms and western capital. That is all, and its pretty clear. Listen Saddam was a butcher--there is nothing good to say about him, but we didn't need to invade, those people were quite happy it seems in their little hell. But now that we're there we had to settle things down or they all would have killed each other.

We can't leave the place in chaos. So little by little we will withdraw and leave them on their own. Another strong man will be in charge in a couple of years after we leave. But as long as the place is stable, and friendly towards America--it really doesn't matter.

[danyboy27]

i swear it dean, i will never ever again refute what your saying, i know you think i am an assole, but well, i cant be loved by everyone, i have to live with that.

[Bud Struggle]

Damn it Dean--do you have to be so nasty to Spetnaz?

No need for that.

[Dean]

Look Dean, I don't want to get in the position of defending America's invasion of Iraq--it's something that I don't and never have agreed with. BUT it was presented to the American people as a reasonable (though one I disagreed with) plan of action.


NOW they don't want it--but at the time there was a good deal of war sentiment in the United States as I remember. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted for it--to give you an indication.
My point was that only by the manipulation of the public by stating the administration's interests did support for war in Iraq materialize in any meaningful way. In other words, people only supported the war because the government pushed for it, people in general did not spontaneously decide to support the aggression.

The point, however, is that the coordination of this aggression is examplary of sociopathy. You are only trying to prove that the U.S. people are insane by implying that we supported the military activity.


It is cheap compared to the rest of the world. No one is suffering that much.
Many working class people are suffering very much. That doesn't mean that the price is right - my point is that more oil is being discovered, more oil drilled, yet the price is up. Supply and demand don't seem to apply.



The US is interested in the interests of the US--there's no denying that. When Saddam was useful than he was all right--when he stopped being useful, some thought it was alright to take him out. Again, not what I would have done--but the main job of the President is to protect and defend American interests around the world--Bush saw a need to do this in Iraq. I disagree, but I see why he invaded. Now the war turned into a bigger mess than anyone could have forseen, but if it was handled properly--it might have been a lot less damaging.
The U.S. government and corporate interests, perhaps. However, the collective interests of the U.S. people and the working class are in direct opposition to the war.


Listen Saddam was a butcher--there is nothing good to say about him, but we didn't need to invade, those people were quite happy it seems in their little hell. But now that we're there we had to settle things down or they all would have killed each other.

We can't leave the place in chaos. So little by little we will withdraw and leave them on their own. Another strong man will be in charge in a couple of years after we leave. But as long as the place is stable, and friendly towards America--it really doesn't matter.
History shows that people in nations which are friendly with the United States suffer dramatically. This is why there is so much opposition to U.S. intervention, and I would certainly hope that future regimes are militantly opposed to the U.S., at least as it is today.


Damn it Dean--do you have to be so nasty to Spetnaz?
No need for that.
Spetnaz21 has defended imperialism and implicitly blamed the Iraqi people for their own misery. He has brought up concerns, then when I pointed out his inconsistencies, attempted to say that those same concerns should not matter, since they are irrelevant. To this point he has even called into question my own morals.

His demeanor is very similar to another member here, who constantly defends Israel without evidence, rudimentary knowledge of the conflict or even consistent arguments. I rarely get angry enough to flame, but when someone is so completely asinine and disrespectful as Spetnas21 has been, it is very frustrating. It's very frustrating for someone to make one primary point and then directly contradict it later in the thread.

[danyboy27]

Spetnaz21 has defended imperialism and implicitly blamed the Iraqi people for their own misery. He has brought up concerns, then when I pointed out his inconsistencies, attempted to say that those same concerns should not matter, since they are irrelevant. To this point he has even called into question my own morals.

His demeanor is very similar to another member here, who constantly defends Israel without evidence, rudimentary knowledge of the conflict or even consistent arguments. I rarely get angry enough to flame, but when someone is so completely asinine and disrespectful as Spetnas21 has been, it is very frustrating. It's very frustrating for someone to make one primary point and then directly contradict it later in the thread.

I am sorry dean if i am like that, sometimes it happen, i contradict myself, its usually happening when i Got the feeling that i am being attacked, i try to defend myself, and it end up with senseless tread like that.

i never meant to offend you man, and if i did i am deeply sorry.

[Dean]

I am sorry dean if i am like that, sometimes it happen, i contradict myself, its usually happening when i Got the feeling that i am being attacked, i try to defend myself, and it end up with senseless tread like that.

i never meant to offend you man, and if i did i am deeply sorry.

Alright, I'm sorry too. I can be overzealous when I feel like people are arguing against me senselessly, but I now see that I was kind of vicious. I'll edit out the flames.

[danyboy27]

Alright, I'm sorry too. I can be overzealous when I feel like people are arguing against me senselessly, but I now see that I was kind of vicious. I'll edit out the flames.

no need for that man, it okay.
back to the topic:
unabomber was indeed batshit insane.

[Bud Struggle]

=
unabomber was indeed batshit insane.

Aren't we all!!!:lol:

[Bud Struggle]

My point was that only by the manipulation of the public by stating the administration's interests did support for war in Iraq materialize in any meaningful way. In other words, people only supported the war because the government pushed for it, people in general did not spontaneously decide to support the aggression. I agree.


The point, however, is that the coordination of this aggression is examplary of sociopathy. You are only trying to prove that the U.S. people are insane by implying that we supported the military activity. They were insane--for a moment. Let's say your married and a friend comes up to you and says--that guy over there just killed your wife. You wife is no where to be seen and you go "insane" run over and punch the guy that "killed" your wife. A little later your wife come home unharmed. You were insane there because of a lie. That's kind of what happened to the American people. The American people were pro war--but I wouldn't blame them.




The U.S. government and corporate interests, perhaps. However, the collective interests of the U.S. people and the working class are in direct opposition to the war. Here true--Iraq is a BAD WAR.



History shows that people in nations which are friendly with the United States suffer dramatically. This is why there is so much opposition to U.S. intervention, and I would certainly hope that future regimes are militantly opposed to the U.S., at least as it is today. Maybe. all in all, not counting some stupid mistakes--like Iraq. I think America is a wonderful and good country. I think it's made up of good people that believe their leaders and get lied to on occasion.

I don't disagree with you that much--where we really fall apart is the place that corporations have in American life. They give us a great standard of living. And the government for the most part (NOT Iraq) does a good job supporting the companies that give us the things we want.

I think we're more in this all together than you seem to.

[Plagueround]

I agree.
I don't disagree with you that much--where we really fall apart is the place that corporations have in American life. They give us a great standard of living. And the government for the most part (NOT Iraq) does a good job supporting the companies that give us the things we want.


As the various arguments you present on this board seem to get refuted and shattered you seem to adopt new stances to justify your position on capitalism and corporations. This month it seems to be TomKavelli's "The ends justify the means". Looking at the way that these corporations accomplish this "high standard of living" I can't help but get frustrated.
One of the stances I don't often see mentioned in the OI defense of capitalism is the effect these practices have on other countries...most of the capitalist apologists kind of have this Candyland obliviousness to their posting. I didn't like that, but I'd almost prefer it to someone telling me exploiting and starving the 3 billion or so people that live on 2 dollars a day or less is a good thing, because we get nice things as a result. I don't know many Americans that would willingly accept that analysis, although I suppose many of us subconciously do since we participate.

Last night I was laying awake in bed at 4am thinking about the fact that about 37,000-50,000 people a day starve to death in a world where we produce enough food to feed them all (I've got to stop reading things like that right before bed). It made me feel bad for all the things I have...and I know I can't go through life feeling guilty all the time...but at what point does this disconnect become acceptable? At what point does some pseudo-intellectual nonsense about property rights, individualism, and entreprenurship justify this crooked and broken system in a person's mind?

There is a terrible, terrible moral schizophrenia in America.

[Bud Struggle]

As the various arguments you present on this board seem to get refuted and shattered you seem to adopt new stances to justify your position on capitalism and corporations.I don't believe I'm changed tact on any political issues since I've been here. I have never agreed with America's invasion of Iraq.


This month it seems to be TomKavelli's "The ends justify the means". Looking at the way that these corporations accomplish this "high standard of living" I can't help but get frustrated. I've always said that, too.


One of the stances I don't often see mentioned in the OI defense of capitalism is the effect these practices have on other countries...most of the capitalist apologists kind of have this Candyland obliviousness to their posting. I didn't like that, but I'd almost prefer it to someone telling me exploiting and starving the 3 billion or so people that live on 2 dollars a day or less is a good thing, because we get nice things as a result. I don't know many Americans that would willingly accept that analysis, although I suppose many of us subconciously do since we participate. The thing is it really doesn't matter if you or I or anyone else on RevLeft "likes" this--it's the way it is. And it's the way the American people LIKE to live their lives and they want a government that delivers it to them. As I said before--if American's don't get the standard of living they are used to--they will vote someone into office that will give it to them. No "Revolutions" they vote in another Reagan.


Last night I was laying awake in bed at 4am thinking about the fact that about 37,000-50,000 people a day starve to death in a world where we produce enough food to feed them all (I've got to stop reading things like that right before bed). It made me feel bad for all the things I have...and I know I can't go through life feeling guilty all the time...but at what point does this disconnect become acceptable? At what point does some pseudo-intellectual nonsense about property rights, individualism, and entreprenurship justify this crooked and broken system in a person's mind? OK you are a wonderful person. (I feel bad, too--I guess that makes me a wonderful person, too!) And the starving people are really sad, but as long as you participate in American life--and live off of the fat of the world, you are as much a part of it as anyone else.


There is a terrible, terrible moral schizophrenia in America.Some will win
And some will lose
And some are born
to sing the blues.

[Dean]

They were insane--for a moment. Let's say your married and a friend comes up to you and says--that guy over there just killed your wife. You wife is no where to be seen and you go "insane" run over and punch the guy that "killed" your wife. A little later your wife come home unharmed. You were insane there because of a lie. That's kind of what happened to the American people. The American people were pro war--but I wouldn't blame them.
TomK, you and I both know that didn't happen. The Iraq war happened at the behest of our administration, and the "friend" in that anecdote is the government - which is also the husband. The U.S. government pushed for, planned, orchestrated and executed the invasion of Iraq, and at no time were the U.S. people involved except as subjects of propaganda campaigns which sought to draw upon the people to mobilize, enlist and provice moral support for the campaign, as well as a favorable economic and political atmosphere.


Maybe. all in all, not counting some stupid mistakes--like Iraq. I think America is a wonderful and good country. I think it's made up of good people that believe their leaders and get lied to on occasion.
I think America and Americans are beautiful and wonderful, too. But I have nothing good to say about the state and corporate structures in this region. And it is totally wrong to call the war a "mistake." It is a genocidal war of aggression meant to destroy the Iraqi infrastructure and funnel money to U.S. corporations.

The 300,000,000,000 earmarked to rebuild Iraq was funnelled so quickly, inorderly and without oversight that it became one of the most egregious, excessive and unregulated government expenses the nation's history. At least half of the money has been deemed "lost" before it was even declared by the payable corporations, and the final day before the remainder was to be handed over to the Iraqi government experienced the most rapid depletion of the account during its entire life.


It would be totally false to say that the lies our nation preach to us are uncommon, in any case. Here are just a few:
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
OH RLY?

Universal 'healthcare'
-Let's force people to buy health insurance
-U.S. corporations have been pushing for this for some time, as a more healthy, stable environment (read: Canada) is better for business.

The Vietnamese attacked us
'We' attacked them!

Sept. 12th, 2001: military jets drop munitions on Afghanistan. U.S. government denies involvement
Shameful.

S. Ossetia is the major aggressor in the recent Georgian-Russia conflict
South Ossetia, as a historical colony of Georgia, with a contrary ethnic background, has opposed Georgian control over the region for hundreds of years.


I don't disagree with you that much--where we really fall apart is the place that corporations have in American life. They give us a great standard of living. And the government for the most part (NOT Iraq) does a good job supporting the companies that give us the things we want.
I don't recall what goods Blackwater[b], [b]Hearst, Lockheed Martin[b] and [b]Northrup Grumman supplied us with, at least not useful goods that outweigh their trammel. Simply put, we'd be better off without the policies, practices and products that corporations are responsible for.


I think we're more in this all together than you seem to.
We are in this together. But none of us were into the invasion of Iraq.


In any case, you have failed to explain where the wanton invasion, systematic destruction of infrastructure and the wide-scale killing of civilains doesn't constiture sociopathy. You admit that Leopold II was insane, but why, when someone does "what the american people want / benefit from" do they stop being insane?

[Plagueround]

I don't believe I'm changed tact on any political issues since I've been here. I have never agreed with America's invasion of Iraq.

I meant the way you phrase arguments, not the argument themselves.


I've always said that, too.

It's unfortunate that you believe it though.


The thing is it really doesn't matter if you or I or anyone else on RevLeft "likes" this--it's the way it is. And it's the way the American people LIKE to live their lives and they want a government that delivers it to them. As I said before--if American's don't get the standard of living they are used to--they will vote someone into office that will give it to them. No "Revolutions" they vote in another Reagan.

One thing the status quo will always tell you is that the status quo will never change. America isn't as stupid as you'd like to think.


OK you are a wonderful person. (I feel bad, too--I guess that makes me a wonderful person, too!) And the starving people are really sad, but as long as you participate in American life--and live off of the fat of the world, you are as much a part of it as anyone else.

Because my options are either:
1. Starve out of solidarity, which does no one any good.
2. Blindly follow the status quo and accept that we can't change a broken system even though the pieces are there because "that's the way it is".
3. Accept that I have more than others, but work toward the aim of abolishing that system and replacing it with one where people are provided for. Sadly, I can't save the people that have died and are going to die today, but that is no excuse to sit idly by and accept Machiavellian philosophy because I'm comfortable.


Some will win
And some will lose
And some are born
to sing the blues.

Well then, I won't stop believing.

[freakazoid]

Getting back on track to the original purpose of this thread, :P
I haven't read his "manifesto" yet, I've got other books on my list of things to read, currently reading The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell, a good book so far :).
I do not believe him to be insane. The guy is a literal genius, scored an IQ somewhere between 160-180 I believe, I'm not sure on the exact number but I will post it later. He went to Harvard University at the age of 16! While I do not completely agree with his anti-tech beliefs, but he does have a point but seems to just miss on the real problems. Also I believe that he should of taken a slightly different rout than what he did on choosing his targets. But he was not insane.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK, you and I both know that didn't happen. The Iraq war happened at the behest of our administration, and the "friend" in that anecdote is the government - which is also the husband. The U.S. government pushed for, planned, orchestrated and executed the invasion of Iraq, and at no time were the U.S. people involved except as subjects of propaganda campaigns which sought to draw upon the people to mobilize, enlist and provice moral support for the campaign, as well as a favorable economic and political atmosphere. I see our point of disagreememt, I think. I think we both see the government doing a propaganda campaign--i just see it as working a bit more than you. Granted there never was any REAL reason to be in Iraq--but I think a lot of American's bought into the propaganda. That's why the administration could wage two wars with an all volunteer army. Most (not all of course) of those guys believe in the war. For that matter I think a lot of American's did. We were fooled--but a lot did believe--and still do.



I think America and Americans are beautiful and wonderful, too. But I have nothing good to say about the state and corporate structures in this region. And it is totally wrong to call the war a "mistake." It is a genocidal war of aggression meant to destroy the Iraqi infrastructure and funnel money to U.S. corporations. I don't think genocide as part of the plan for the war, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it was nothing planned. As far as money going into American corporations--there again--I don't see many American corporationg making that much money off of the war--some yes, but overall the war is a money looser not maker.

The problem I have with your blanket condemnation of UScorporations is that the corporations are US. You and me. Theses major corporations are owned by millions and millions of everyday citizens, and yes there a re a couple of fat cats at the top--but most of these companies like Exxon are owned by the rank and file shareholders with 100 shares of common stock in their retirement funds or stock profolio. WE are Exxon.


The 300,000,000,000 earmarked to rebuild Iraq was funnelled so quickly, inorderly and without oversight that it became one of the most egregious, excessive and unregulated government expenses the nation's history. At least half of the money has been deemed "lost" before it was even declared by the payable corporations, and the final day before the remainder was to be handed over to the Iraqi government experienced the most rapid depletion of the account during its entire life. Nobody cared what happened to the money--and yes, some people got rich--but not that many to make it all worth while. That money is LOST.



It would be totally false to say that the lies our nation preach to us are uncommon, in any case. Here are just a few:
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
OH RLY? Well, obviously.


Universal 'healthcare' Universal healthcare isn't going to happen. We don't have the money. As a matter of fact the things that are draining the US budget the most are Madicare and Medicaid. Universal healthcare would be a disaster.

Besides--we already have a type of universal healthcare--if you are sick no hospital will turn you away.


The Vietnamese attacked usAn ideological war that got out of hand. The American government actually believed at the time that Communism was a workable economic theory.


Sept. 12th, 2001: military jets drop munitions on Afghanistan. U.S. government denies involvement I don't remember this one.


S. Ossetia is the major aggressor in the recent Georgian-Russia conflict The Caucus Mountains are the Balkan Mountains lite. They will be fighting forever. The US's involvement there and in the Ukraine is just to keep the remains of the Soviet Union from ever arising again.


In any case, you have failed to explain where the [B]wanton invasion, systematic destruction of infrastructure and the wide-scale killing of civilains doesn't constiture sociopathy. You admit that Leopold II was insane, but why, when someone does "what the american people want / benefit from" do they stop being insane?The intention of the US people was never to kill thousands of people--as a matter of fact 99% are and would be against it--BUT they want their government to keep up their standard of living. the Iraq war isn't supplying anything to the American people, that's why the war was a mistake--the US could have done much better doing at it always does better--business. With or without war the US sould still buy planes and such from Lockheed and guns from whomever makes guns--FWIW there isn't that much money going into Iraq from the US government compared to the money going into medicare--if the US wanted to throw away money for nothing to US corporations all they would have to do is extend that program a little.