Entwhat? Where's the debate?

[brownjenkins]

Generally the moderation really isn't that bad around here. They let things go pretty far. But if you start commenting about the moderators, they are going to moderate you. It's human nature. Not many boards put up with that.

[captain carrot]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Generally the moderation really isn't that bad around here. They let things go pretty far. But if you start commenting about the moderators, they are going to moderate you. It's human nature. Not many boards put up with that.

Thou vilest spittle tongued barber of questionable oral health thee!

[brownjenkins]

Thou shall stand in fire up to the navel and in ice up to th'heart, and there th'offending part burns and the deceiving part freezes.

[captain carrot]

'ere, you been reading my correspondence with the mods?

[Tessar]

By off topic I was refering more to the way you were dragging the thread towards a profanity-filled, rude, flamefestish direction .

Also you've been a major problem for us in the past--that does tend to make us moderate you more frequently. Especially considering how many second chances we've offered and then had you turn around and bitch at us for them.

Here's the trick: If you don't want your threads deleted, be nice. There is a major difference between saying you think something is wrong, and politely contacting the people in charge, as opposed to PMing every single Mod and Admin the same thing multiple times and then trying to tell us what we said, when in fact you should be aware that we said something completely different.


When you're posting on a board, you should be ready to follow the rules of that board . If you don't like the rules, there are better ways to complain about them than the... explosive... methods that have been attempted in the past.

I am rarely as upstraight on any other board as I am on entmoot, however I try to follow the PG13 guidelines of this particular board and to enforce them if they seem to require it. Similar to how I might say, "aw, hell," if I drop something while I'm talking to a friend, or would instead just say, "oops" if I was around someone I know objects to stronger language.

[captain carrot]

*tickles Tessar*

Life getting you down? ... Just whistle ...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, I deliberately used the term "neocon" because it is their "project" that has sunk before it got out of the harbour, as predicted.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...967420,00.html for more details.


I know plenty of "conservatives" who opposed the war too.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

And it is not enough to just say "everyone is just as bad as each other", because they're not. With the neocons holding the reigns of power, one would hope for some sort of accountability. Compare with Clinton, who was effectively hounded out of office for lying about Monica Lewinski.

Well, of course you can make the situation look like whatever you want it to look like if you pick an incident you view as extremely horrible from the right and compare it with something you view as much less significant done by the left. I could do the same thing easily, picking things done on the right which are less significant and comparing them with major things from the left. Such as comparing Democratic President Johnson's Tonkin Resolution and arguably expanding the Vietnam War based upon falsified evidence, an action considered by most Americans to have been abominable, with government support of abstinence-only groups, or something like that. Not that I'm condemning either that kind of funding or the Vietnam War- I only mention them both because I expect you would. My point is that one can draw any kind of comparison one wants, but dirt can be thrown at both parties and they're all guilty of one thing or another, and they all can be blind and narrow-minded, and can make big mistakes or small ones. They're all human.

Also, in my personal experience, conservatives and liberals alike all get fixed into believing in a certain way and then it's very hard to change them. I've met very, very few people who are really open-minded, on either the right or the left, and those people tend to be open-minded just because they're ignorant. People on the right and the left are equally close-minded.

[hectorberlioz]

Clinton was hounded out of office for the Lewinsky affair? That's new. What I think is that he should have been.

[The Gaffer]

Nah, his presidency was effectively crippled by it. (That and not having a Democrat majority in either house.) But it's interesting that you think lying about an affair is a worse thing to do than starting an unwinnable war.

What you say is true, of course, Lief, but that's not the issue here. Perhaps it's pointless to try to compare.

Nevertheless, where are the neocons admitting that they did wrong? This administration does not admit its mistakes and cannot accept an honest and objective assessment of the current situation and how it came about.

Which raises another quetsion: where are the rank and file democrat and republican Representatives demanding to know how such an Administration can, with said blinkers firmly in place, be expected to come up with a sensible way forward?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Nah, his presidency was effectively crippled by it. (That and not having a Democrat majority in either house.) But it's interesting that you think lying about an affair is a worse thing to do than starting an unwinnable war.

What's interesting is that I never said that.

[Insidious Rex]

Then why not constantly harrass Bush about the war like you enjoy doing with Clinton about Lewinsky every chance you get?

[Lief Erikson]

The whole country went for the war together, and Congress had access to the same intelligence the Administration had when coming to its conclusion. Leveling accusations at the Administration alone is unjust. One would be more justified in blaming most of the country.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

What you say is true, of course, Lief, but that's not the issue here. Perhaps it's pointless to try to compare.

I agree.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Nevertheless, where are the neocons admitting that they did wrong? This administration does not admit its mistakes and cannot accept an honest and objective assessment of the current situation and how it came about.

I don't think that political parties often do admit to having made mistakes. Doing that can weaken their credibility among those who do believe in what they're trying to do, and makes them less able to move forward.

[The Gaffer]

Of course, this is true, and I think it is one of the greatest weaknesses of modern, media-slave politics. It's also exactly why, when a fundamental policy has been proven to be disastrous, you have to kick out the incumbent: because they are so closely associated with that policy, they cannot be expected to think objectively about alternatives.

I don't think we can just say "Oh well, we can't expect them to admit they're wrong, so let's just carry on with the war so they don't get embarrassed"

Hector: you said words to the effect that Clinton should have been kicked out of office because of the Lewinsky affair. Bush et al basically lied to take us to war; Clinton lied about shagging an intern. Which is worse?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Of course, this is true, and I think it is one of the greatest weaknesses of modern, media-slave politics. It's also exactly why, when a fundamental policy has been proven to be disastrous, you have to kick out the incumbent: because they are so closely associated with that policy, they cannot be expected to think objectively about alternatives.

I don't think we can just say "Oh well, we can't expect them to admit they're wrong, so let's just carry on with the war so they don't get embarrassed"

Good point. But I think that first of all, the Bush Administration is no more guilty than the rest of the country for starting this war, for the vast majority of us together believed they were building WMDs, Congress believing it based on the same intelligence information the administration had. Besides which, chemical weapons and weapons that can launch them into neighboring countries certainly have been found in Iraq- just not in the quantities expected.

Also, I think that the Administration is handling the situation in Iraq in the best possible way right now. There aren't any good options, and right now fighting it out and maintaining our push for a stable democracy is still a workable solution. The fact that there was such a large turnout in the Iraqi elections indicates that the Iraqi population overall wants a democracy. There also have been many successes since we arrived in Iraq in the development of a democratic government, though naturally it too has problems, such as the death squads. But we have the resources and military power to achieve the objective of bringing freedom to Iraq. It just takes time and commitment.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Good point. But I think that first of all, the Bush Administration is no more guilty than the rest of the country for starting this war, for the vast majority of us together believed they were building WMDs, Congress believing it based on the same intelligence information the administration had. Besides which, chemical weapons and weapons that can launch them into neighboring countries certainly have been found in Iraq- just not in the quantities expected.

Revisionist history at it's best!

The Bush Administration brought the whole topic to the table in the first place. There were suspicions since the Reagan era, but it was GW who conned the rest of the country into thinking it was any real threat.

You could make the argument that it is still the falt of the rest of our country because we allowed ourselves to be duped, but that's a shakey one.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Also, I think that the Administration is handling the situation in Iraq in the best possible way right now. There aren't any good options, and right now fighting it out and maintaining our push for a stable democracy is still a workable solution. The fact that there was such a large turnout in the Iraqi elections indicates that the Iraqi population overall wants a democracy. There also have been many successes since we arrived in Iraq in the development of a democratic government, though naturally it too has problems, such as the death squads. But we have the resources and military power to achieve the objective of bringing freedom to Iraq. It just takes time and commitment.

The average Iraqi is still in much worse shape today than they were under Saddam, and I'll bet money that they will be two years from now. We went in to solve a problem, made matters much worse, and are now trying to fix that.

Any "successes" are only successes relative to how far down we have brought their country.

If I burn down your house and then turn around an build you a beautiful new bed that is much nicer than your old bed, would you say, "This is the nicest bed I ever had! I don't even miss the fact that I don't have a house anymore!"

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Revisionist history at it's best!

The Bush Administration brought the whole topic to the table in the first place. There were suspicions since the Reagan era, but it was GW who conned the rest of the country into thinking it was any real threat.

You could make the argument that it is still the falt of the rest of our country because we allowed ourselves to be duped, but that's a shakey one.

Our Congress also believed it, and as I said, they had the same intelligence available to them as the Administration had. Also, the intelligence services of multiple other countries believed it, and they have lost lives in this war as well. If this was a mistake, we certainly weren't the only ones who made it. In view of all that, I think that the idea that the war was all the Bush Administration pushing their predispositions upon the available intelligence is just a big conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The average Iraqi is still in much worse shape today than they were under Saddam, and I'll bet money that they will be two years from now. We went in to solve a problem, made matters much worse, and are now trying to fix that.

Because there is a war going on. Things are always going to be hard while a war is going on.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Any "successes" are only successes relative to how far down we have brought their country.

That is absurd. The current government was freely elected- that is not a success relative to how far we have brought down the country, but is a big success compared to Saddam's tyranny. Security is not at all good right now, but the freedoms in the political process and involvement of multiple parties is certainly a big advance.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If I burn down your house and then turn around an build you a beautiful new bed that is much nicer than your old bed, would you say, "This is the nicest bed I ever had! I don't even miss the fact that I don't have a house anymore!"

So let's finish building the house! While the construction is in progress, it's not going to look as good as the finished product. And if the house you have is a slum, to give you a good one, you might have to knock down the old to replace it. And there will be a period of displacement. There have been a number of successes in Iraq which I have posted about on this site before. We tend to only look at the bad, because that's all that makes it onto the news. The good tends to be overlooked, because people being blown up is a bigger story than a school being built.

[brownjenkins]

To the first point... who brought up the idea of invading Iraq? Who actually decided to invade Iraq? I think you should look back on the timeline, from 9/11 to Afghanistan to Iraq.

The Iraq invasion simply never would have happened without GWB.

As far as the good being overlooked, it is simply because the bad far outweighs the good. In case you haven't been paying attention, even the GWB isn't pretending anymore that he is going to bring about democracy in Iraq. Sure, they had elections, but the people who hold the power don't happen to be the people who were elected.

Do you really think if we kill Iraqis long enough peace and democracy will just happen?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

To the first point... who brought up the idea of invading Iraq? Who actually decided to invade Iraq? I think you should look back on the timeline, from 9/11 to Afghanistan to Iraq.

The Iraq invasion simply never would have happened without GWB.

Both parties of Congress supported it, as did many other countries. It was certainly not a solo action on the part of the Administration, though they, along with many others, were involved.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

As far as the good being overlooked, it is simply because the bad far outweighs the good.

Maybe that's true, but the good is also happening. It takes time.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In case you haven't been paying attention, even the GWB isn't pretending anymore that he is going to bring about democracy in Iraq. Sure, they had elections, but the people who hold the power don't happen to be the people who were elected.

Would you provide me with evidence regarding this? I haven't heard that from President Bush, and I would think it would be headlines if he said that.

It makes sense that some people who have a great deal of personal power would be brought into the government and political process even though they weren't elected, because that's the best way to ensure that the government does represent all the important factions. But I would like to see your evidence, if you're saying that many elected officials have been sidelined and deprived of power. I'd like to see evidence about the scale at which that is happening too, for again, what you're saying here is all new to me.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Do you really think if we kill Iraqis long enough peace and democracy will just happen?

Democracy has been being built through a political process that has produced a working, democratically elected government in Iraq. Peace will come when the Iraqi military and police force have sufficient power to destroy the insurgency. The Iraqi military and police force are the hope for a secure Iraqi future. Their numbers have been steadily growing. Sure, there are problems too of different parts of the police working with various militias. There is corruption, and there have been problems. That does not mean it's hopeless. Their numbers have been constantly growing, as has their training and proficiency. They have been involved in numerous operations in Iraq and are gaining more and more control. Eventually, we'll give them complete control. They are our hope there, and they, like the democratic government, have been improving and becoming more successful with time, though they are still spotted with various problems.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Bush et al basically lied to take us to war; ...

I'm just coming into this thread, so could you please elaborate? I don't see how he lied.

Clinton lied about shagging an intern.

Lied under oath. To me, that's not only lying to a person, it's also lying against the whole country and its judicial system.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Lied under oath. To me, that's not only lying to a person, it's also lying against the whole country and its judicial system.

As the representative of the country, too, and its leader.