Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Prodromos]

This weekend marks the 31st anniversary of the Halabja massacre, when 5000 Kurdish civilians were killed by Saddam. It was part of the Anfal campaign to put down the Kurdish insurgency, which resulted in between 50,000 and 200,000 civilians dead.

But at least he kept Iraq "stable", huh.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Love Mountain]

You're justifying the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of victims of the Iraq War by saying Saddam also killed thousands. Think about it.

[Aexodus]

You're justifying the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of victims of the Iraq War by saying Saddam also killed thousands. Think about it.

That statement isn’t quite there, but it’s almost a paradox.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

It is a shame that the situation with the Kurds is the way it is. Even so I can't see how Kurdistan is anything other than a pipe dream. Destabilizing the region means that Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria would have common cause to attack the Kurds.

[Katsumoto]

Man, the GOP really nailed Beto with this zinger of a meme.

In an attempt to celebrate St Patrick’s Day and attack a political rival, the Republican party tweeted a mugshot of the Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke emblazoned with a green leprechaun’s hat and the words “please drink responsibly”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...cks-day-attack

[Aexodus]

Beto’s campaign has been more of an apology tour for everything from milquetoast jokes about being a Dad to white privilege, if he’s this weak in the debates then he hasn’t much hope. At the moment he doesn’t have an answer to idpol attacks from Harris, as he doesn’t seem capable of saying the colour of his skin is irrelevant to the substance of his arguments.

[Prodromos]

You're justifying the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of victims of the Iraq War by saying Saddam also killed thousands. Think about it.

Millions were killed or displaced in the Civil War. Do you believe the Civil War shouldn't have been fought?

[Love Mountain]

Millions were killed or displaced in the Civil War. Do you believe the Civil War shouldn't have been fought?

The Civil War was a conflict that aimed to preserve territorial integrity and to eliminate the institution of slavery in United States. The 2003 invasion of Iraq lacks both of those important causes.

[Abdülmecid I]

I think that it would be more practical, from the perspective of the Iraqi citizens murdered, tortured and oppressed by the Baathist regime, if the United States responded immediately after the attack, even if their reaction was limited to a verbal condemnation. Invading and destroying the state apparatus 15 years after the affair seems pointless, irrelevant and quite inefficient. Not to mention the fact that the State Department actually blamed the only ally the Iraqi Kurds had at that moment, the Iranian Republic, for the crime, despite the fact that the Iranians had never used chemical weapons during the war. Given the fact that Washington regularly covered Saddam's atrocities against Iranian and Iraqi citizens (as well as Iranian soldiers, who were also often gassed), it is not unreasonable to assume that Washington's attitude actually encouraged the dictator to show no mercy to his opponents, considering that the superpower was more than willing to turn a blind eye. America's indirect support for his bloodthirsty methods is perhaps partially responsible for the easiness with which Baghdad exterminated her enemies.

Meanwhile, in other news, Australian Senator Fraser Anning, notorious for excusing the Christchurch attack as an inevitable vigilant response Islamic imperialism, fell himself victim to a controversial act of suicidal vigilantism, as well. The perpetrator has been identified as Martyr Egg and didn't hesitate to sacrifice his ovoid shape for the sake of common decency.

[sumskilz]

You're justifying the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of victims of the Iraq War by saying Saddam also killed thousands. Think about it.

Blaming the US invasion for these numbers is based on the assumption that there wouldn't have been a civil war in Iraq if the US hadn't removed Saddam. Saddam would be 82 next month if he were still alive, not that he necessarily would have been if the US hadn't removed him from power. How would Iraq have weathered the Arab Spring with Saddam's less competent but even more brutal sons in charge? Hard to believe Iran wouldn't have supported a Shiite insurgency. Is the US responsible for every death in Iraq from 2003 onward because it can be traced back to the invasion via a chain of cause and effect? If so, I thought it was already colonialism's fault... or the Mongols... or whatever.

[Love Mountain]

Blaming the US invasion for these numbers is based on the assumption that there wouldn't have been a civil war in Iraq if the US hadn't removed Saddam. Saddam would be 82 next month if he were still alive, not that he necessarily would have been if the US hadn't removed him from power. How would Iraq have weathered the Arab Spring with Saddam's less competent but even more brutal sons in charge? Hard to believe Iran wouldn't have supported a Shiite insurgency. Is the US responsible for every death in Iraq from 2003 onward because it can be traced back to the invasion via a chain of cause and effect? If so, I thought it was already colonialism's fault... or the Mongols... or whatever.

An alternative to a US invasion is not a civil war, nor does the Arab Spring result in a civil war in every affected country. In fact, civil war is an exception to the rule, not the norm. Most countries that were experienced a powerful civil uprising, but only two countries, Syria and Libya, devolved into a brutal civil war. Civil Wars which were exacerbated by Western involvement. Criticism of US invasion and "defense" (if that's what people want to call it) of Saddam Hussein is not predicated on the assumption that Iraq would avoid bloodshed or experience economic prosperity. It is based on a widely held belief that all countries are entitled to self-determination. Or in other words, all countries should be free to pursue their own destiny.

Criticism of Western policy in Middle East is therefore centered around two things. Firstly, the disastrous consequences of haphazard policy that was never noble to begin with. Secondly, the nature of intervention is that it diverts the path of relatively independent actors. We would not be defending Saddam Hussein today if the 2003 invasion ever happened. Just like nobody credits Ayatollah Khomeini for being a progressive, or Hosni Mubarak with keeping Egypt "stable". It is a matter of factual history that Egypt is capable of being stable and functioning without Mubarak. On the other hand, the immediate aftermath of US invasion was a brutal sectarian conflict that was resolved only through a gargantuan effort from the US military and an external threat of ISIL. "Resolved" being a strong word here. It persists to this day and is still a crisis for Iraq, but government services have been strengthened to a point where the violence is no longer an existential threat to the new regime.

I think you're also conflating culpability and responsibility here. I don't hold United States in deep contempt or cite them as a primary cause for every atrocity, brutality, and death that ever happened since 2003 nor did we have a direct hand in every single event. Are we responsible for all of it? Unfortunately yes. We've created the conditions for the crisis to occur, that's simple accountability.

[B. W.]

The video in this article is the funniest thing I've seen since going to a Steve Martin performance in the early 1990s. Aside from the fact that these people are obviously racist because there are no black or brown people in the "crowd".

Seriously, Media Matters is losing its steam. So what's your opinion? Do you think the left has jumped the shark and finally worn out its old tactics of demonetization. As the old story goes, you can only cry wolf so many times and now the left has added being ridiculous to its list of attributes:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...s_bananas.html

BTW, I kept looking for Bill Murray in one of those costumes, maybe I missed him. Did anybody see Bill Murray in the video?

Merged, as the thread lacks any sufficient basis for discussion and an article from a reliable source. ~Abdülmecid I

[sumskilz]

An alternative to a US invasion is not a civil war, nor does the Arab Spring result in a civil war in every affected country. In fact, civil war is an exception to the rule, not the norm. Most countries that were experienced a powerful civil uprising, but only two countries, Syria and Libya, devolved into a brutal civil war.

We're talking alternative history here, so nothing is certain, but it's fair to say Saddam was more despised by a larger percentage of the population he ruled over than Assad or Gaddafi ever were. His sons would have been even more so.

While somewhat vague in your wording, the numbers you gave seem to indicate that you consider the US invasion of 2003 to be the primary cause of the civil war in Iraq following the withdrawal of US troops. Obviously the US removal of Saddam and subsequent occupation will always be a part of Iraq's history, so how long will you consider it the primary cause of instability in Iraq? At what point in your mind will the actions and choices of the Iraqis themselves carry greater weight than whatever inertia was set in motion by the US invasion?

In my opinion, the civil war in Iraq had deeper causes, the circumstances set in motion by the US invasion and poorly handled occupation were simply the catalyst. I have trouble imagining an Iraq ruled by Qusay Hussein not spiraling into violent civil war.

Criticism of US invasion and "defense" (if that's what people want to call it) of Saddam Hussein is not predicated on the assumption that Iraq would avoid bloodshed or experience economic prosperity. It is based on a widely held belief that all countries are entitled to self-determination. Or in other words, all countries should be free to pursue their own destiny.

Criticize all you want. You and I both know that ideal is not how it actually works. It wasn't my intent to involve myself in that debate. Although my advice to countries that would like to be masters of their own destinies would be to have powerful allies and make yourself valuable to them. Also, try to avoid assassination attempts on US presidents, especially if there is any chance of their son likewise becoming president.

[The Gurkhan]

No he hasn’t got brilliant moral character honestly, he just happens to want Islamic reform, which is his main cause, and among others, one I sympathize with. Tell me, how did we reform Christianity from it’s medieval form? Treating it with kid gloves?

Apprently a US diplomat lobbied Britain on Robinson’s behalf.

He's objectively a very low rent thug and petty criminal who owes his entire livelihood to being chosen as the very definition of a useful idiot. Nothing he pretends to know is his own knowledge. Every piece of moronic slurry and idiotic talking point he parrots about Islam has just been spoon fed to him by various often US based handlers. You should only really see him as a very stupid faux British working class face of a wide European and US network of organised anti-Islam pro-Israel lobbying.

Even his name is a fraud.

[NorseThing]

Alan Krueger, Democratic labor economist, dies at 58

An academic I just as often agreed with as I disagreed with. He will be missed, but his body of work will last beyond his years.

This excerpt for the above link pretty much sums up my ideas:

"He saw economic policy not as a matter of abstract theories, but as a way to make people’s lives better," former President Barack Obama said in a written statement. "Through it all, he had a perpetual smile and a gentle spirit—even when he was correcting you."

Alan Krueger, Democratic labor economist, dies at 58



Edit: on a totally unrelated front (CNN w Trapper in a town hall for the 2020 Presidential nomination process):

Asked about ensuring fair taxes Monday night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren called out corruption in government.
“Let’s just admit it. When you’ve got a government that works for the rich and it’s not working nearly as well for anyone else, that’s corruption, and we need to call it out plain and simple,” she said.
The Democratic senator then touted her proposed “wealth tax,” which would impose a 2% tax on Americans whose net worth exceeds $50 million and an additional 1% levy on billionaires.
“Anybody in here a homeowner? You’ve been paying wealth taxes for a long time. They’re just called property taxes,” Warren said. She added to applause: “I just want to include the Rembrandt and the Diamonds in the property taxes."
Warren then pointed to how this "wealth tax" would pay for her other proposals related to universal child care and universal pre-k – with $2 trillion to spare.
“We get a 2% tax on the 75,000 richest families in this country, we would have enough money to provide universal child care, universal pre-k, universal pre-pre-k for every child in America and still have $2 trillion left over,” she said.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...ppi/index.html

Well at least this tax the rich idea is honest and progressive. I think our radical left candidate is overstating what such a tax could fund though since most of the wealth would simply leave the country while Congress discusses the idea leading up to a vote and even then it would take implementation and clearing the court dockets to settle such rubbish thinking. I do not think for a moment she even believes herself to be presidential material.

[PikeStance]

of course government works for the rich. That has always been true. How can a democrat, who often advocate a larger government going to change that?

[Aexodus]

Don’t forget to cast your votes this week!

[NorseThing]

But Democrats should recognize that by idolizing the small donor, they are not cleansing the political process. They are just creating incentives in the primary that help certain types of candidates over everyone else.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...debates-225884

Last paragraph is the reason for this post. Read the full article at the link.

In general, the media is most interested in making political contests into a form of horse race complete with on track betting for the winners and losers.

What happened with the idea that political contests are the elections and the results of the ballot are what should matter? Of course the political parties are also to blame by thinking money in some forms is bad and in other forms it is pure. Money is fungible and in the aggregate it matter not a whit that it is composed of thousands of donors or a single donor when it is spent. Making this an abstract for polling by the media, the parties, the candidates, and the voters is pretty lazy in my opinion.

[Prodromos]

Pretty interesting.

[The spartan]

Is that where you learn most of your political information? Youtube "gotcha" propaganda?

A little tip for future youtubing: if someone is making a lot of videos that include the phrase "the TRUTH about...", it probably isn't.