What if you KNEW there was a God.

[Augustus]

That is EXACTLY what happened. People like you said that countries like Japan and Germany, or ethnic Chinese, or Arabs, "couldn't handle democracy and needed a dictator". That was and is a complete lie. It was possible that after liberating Iraq, that there would be 0 political parties rising up, and that everyone insisted they wanted Saddam or one of his minions back in charge. That did NOT happen. Instead we saw a phenomenal 300+ parties spring up, and a huge turnout to elections. That's a DAMN GOOD start!


Nonsense. It's a perfectly valid measure, even if it's not the ONLY measure.

Without bothering to check, although I'm pretty confident I'm right, I would imagine number of political parties in a democracy is inversely correlated to how democratic it is.

Voting and democracy are very different things.

People in the West also have very little experience of having their tongue cut out LEGALLY by their own government. So?

Actually it was illegal under Saddam, just they were above the law (which people still are now btw) wheras enslaving Yazidis and throwing gays off buildings is legal in the Islamic State that wouldn't exist without you.

Look no one doubts Saddam was despicable and violent, just that the invasion increased violence rather than decreasing it.

Agree?

Show me evidence of even 1% of the pro-war saying that it was an easy job?

'cakewalk', 'Mission accomplished', etc.

I don't know where you're getting your statistically valid opinion polls from, but yes, every country has idiots, including my country, so I don't expect Iraq to be perfect.

The polls are pretty consistent, and I do understand polling, and it is the best way we have of gauging opinion. What alternative are you using? Completely fabricating numbers?

Then you will know why they are likely to be flawed. This would have to be the base assumption, not that they were accurate.

Who did the polls btw? Have you got the methodology?

Absent the methodology, I wouldn't give then any credibility. If I could see it then I might reevaluate what I said, if not I will treat it as being completely fabricated/without any merit.

Absolutely. Now we're in a position to change that 50/50 to 99/1 in favor of being aligned with the free world. After 9/11, it is absolutely essential that we change worldviews in the Middle East such that another 9/11 is completely unthinkable. It's not unthinkable while ever Arabs are 50% opposed to the free world. The Afghans aren't, but the Arabs (at least in Iraq), are.

Stop thinking in ideological terms, think about real life. Most people don't give a f**k about who they are aligned with, they give a f**k about having food, electricity, not being killed, extorted, etc.

I consider it to be offensive to say that the indigenous Iraqi volunteer forces are Iranian stooges. They are not. They are Arabs who believe in standing up for freedom. I have no idea why you choose to denigrate these good Arab Muslims who are putting their lives on the line for freedom.

Because most of them are sectarian militias, it's just the truth. Sorry if it is inconvenient.

Complete nonsense. The vast bulk of the population are living under areas run by the Iraqi government.

Which in no way, shape or form can be said to be heavily influenced by Iran.

No, I find it extremely distasteful that human beings should be living as effectively slaves under a cruel dictator. When my grandchildren ask me "what did you do when there was still state-slavery in the world?", I want to be able to answer "absolutely everything that was in my power". I am very happy that Iraq's oil revenue is now being spent on helping the Iraqi people with regards to freedom/education/healthcare instead of on Saddam's palaces.

Could tell them you helped to reestablish the caliphate too I suppose

Iraqs oil revenue is also being used to reestablish the Caliphate and recruit foreign jihadis, being syphoned off by corrupt elites, remaining in the ground cos everyone is fighting over the refineries and oil fields.

Iraq's oil wealth actually makes it far less likely that they will transition to a functioning democracy. In any resource rich country, the elite get rich regardless. They don't need the people to achieve their goals. The people are a nuisance that get in the way of the oligarchs plutocracy. People will fight over the resources, corruption will reign, democracy gets replaced with a kind of neo-feudalism and patrician politics.

Perhaps it is you that has the hubris by insisting we can't help Uday's victims get justice.

Do you know what hubris actually means? How can it be hubristic to believe that you lack the capability to achieve a desirable goal?

It is you who doesn't get that protecting women from rape is as equally true of individuals as it is of groups, or nation-states.
Straw man. I'm not saying that the Soviet economy was sound. I'm saying that regardless of whether we are talking about Iraq or Australia, democracy in both places is the best way to protect human rights, especially in the long term.

This is the part that you still don't get. Wanting something very, very much is not the same as being able to achieve it.

The problem with ideologues is that they have to deny reality when it contradicts their ideology.

Iraq couldn't really be a bigger mess than it is now yet you still champion it as some kind of progress.

You really can't see that Afghanistan is a friendly democracy? Yes, they have some terrorism in Afghanistan. Same as Britain had terrorism from the IRA. But in both cases, Britain and Afghanistan have governments that are absolutely allies. Have you bothered to listen to anything Ashraf Ghani (democratically-elected Afghan president) has said?

I think you confuse voting with democracy. Taliban back in control of how much of the country now?

You are the one who closed your eyes saying "everything was fine under Saddam, leave him, leave him, even if the rapes, don't worry, just leave him in power".

Since 2003 in Iraq, and answer me honestly, would you guess that the rate of rape has a) increased or b) decreased

[Don't forget rape is now legal in the Islamic State if the victim happens to be your slave and the militias have been accused of many rapes also]

If you answered a) how can you accuse anyone who objected to the war of being 'accessories to rape'. If you answered b) please explain your reasoning

Ditto, violent death
Ditto, destruction or property
Ditto, displacement of people
Ditto, torture
etc.

Overall, has the standard of living a) increased or b) decreased for the average Iraqi?

Note that if we cannot turn the Arab dictators into friendly democracies, then we need to turn the Middle East into a glass desert to prevent another 9/11. So anything that staves off nuclear extinction is cool in my book.

Does that include Sisi who your tax $$ are helping to keep in power? What about Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi, etc.

As a neocon do you support the invasion of murderous Bahraini regime and the slavery sanctioning Qatari one also? Why not start in these Gulf countries, they are small and easier to 'fix'. Would help you get some practice at building democracies too, as looks like you need it.

Do you object to your tax money being used to roll back democracy in Egypt btw, just because they voted for someone you didn't really like?

[and I'm not even going to start on your either... or... dichotomy]

 

[kerravon]

Without bothering to check, although I'm pretty confident I'm right, I would imagine number of political parties in a democracy is inversely correlated to how democratic it is.

I don't believe you have any way of measuring that, but one thing I'm sure of is that a democracy with 300+ political parties is WAY different from a country that has 1 single party to "choose" from, as was the case in USSR and under Saddam.

Voting and democracy are very different things.

Democracy and dictatorship are very different things too. And Iraq has just transitioned from one to the other.

Actually it was illegal under Saddam, just they were above the law

The REAL law, or rulebook, that the police actually enforced, was that Saddam could rape anyone he felt like, and the security forces would protect his right to do whatever they want.

(which people still are now btw)

If you know of someone in the current Iraq who has abducted and raped a girl like Uday used to do, then please send the details to the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi government, and Iraqi and international media.

wheras enslaving Yazidis and throwing gays off buildings is legal in the Islamic State that wouldn't exist without you.

I support fighting ISIS terrorists and non-ISIS terrorists the same way that I supported fighting Saddam. I consider that to be a perfectly moral position to take. Ignoring institutionalized rape by Saddam is something I consider to be horrible.

Look no one doubts Saddam was despicable and violent, just that the invasion increased violence rather than decreasing it.

Agree?

I'm not sure what the murder rate was under Saddam compared to post-Saddam. But even if I agree that the level of violence has increased, I draw a very different distinction between violence perpetrated by a dictator and violence perpetrated by individual terrorists against a democracy. And regardless of the murder rate that the Iraqi terrorists are able to achieve, I would not surrender my country to them any more than I would expect Britain to surrender to the IRA.

'cakewalk', 'Mission accomplished', etc.

That was in respect to toppling Saddam, which took 3.5 weeks and cost about 100 allied lives. It was indeed a cakewalk. What we had no idea about was what happened after that. We had hoped to get a "thanks for that" similar to what the Afghans said. The fact that we didn't get that is exactly why it was an important part of the War on Terror.

Then you will know why they are likely to be flawed. This would have to be the base assumption, not that they were accurate.

No, so long as they are statistically valid, they provide the best way of obtaining data. Far better than having you just make up random numbers.

Who did the polls btw? Have you got the methodology?

Absent the methodology, I wouldn't give then any credibility. If I could see it then I might reevaluate what I said, if not I will treat it as being completely fabricated/without any merit.

Here is one poll done by/for the BBC, a respectable source of information (more respectable than you just making up random numbers, anyway): BBC NEWS | Middle East | Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq

The numbers of interest from there are 48% supporting military action, 43% opposed. The roughly 50/50 split I keep referring to.

Stop thinking in ideological terms, think about real life. Most people don't give a f**k about who they are aligned with, they give a f**k about having food, electricity, not being killed, extorted, etc.

Completely false. If people didn't care about who they were aligned to, they wouldn't bother voting. Instead, Iraq gets something like 75% turnout at elections. And now that Iraq's wealth is not being squandered by a dictator, they are free to use Iraq's oil wealth to create more electricity etc.

Because most of them are sectarian militias, it's just the truth. Sorry if it is inconvenient.

If you want to claim that the mainly Shiite militias are mainly Shiite, that is true. What is not true is that they are Iranian puppets.

Which in no way, shape or form can be said to be heavily influenced by Iran.

Correct. They are influenced by whatever the democratically-elected Iraqi government tells them point-blank to do. Similar to the Iraqi army itself. It does not take orders from the American trainers, it takes them from the Iraqi government. Note that the Iraqi defence minister is a Sunni too.

Could tell them you helped to reestablish the caliphate too I suppose

I prefer to tell them that I supported the fight AGAINST the caliphate too.

Iraqs oil revenue is also being used to reestablish the Caliphate and recruit foreign jihadis, being syphoned off by corrupt elites, remaining in the ground cos everyone is fighting over the refineries and oil fields.

Nonsense. ISIS don't have control of any oil. At one point they got a bit of oil in Syria and the facility was bombed from the air. Tell me how many barrels of oil per day you believe ISIS is selling.

Iraq's oil wealth actually makes it far less likely that they will transition to a functioning democracy. In any resource rich country, the elite get rich regardless. They don't need the people to achieve their goals. The people are a nuisance that get in the way of the oligarchs plutocracy. People will fight over the resources, corruption will reign, democracy gets replaced with a kind of neo-feudalism and patrician politics.

More nonsense. Norway has oil too, and that didn't cause war. If Iraq doesn't behave like Norway then that's exactly why we need to be in Iraq. We need to convert Iraq into a clone of Norway.

Do you know what hubris actually means? How can it be hubristic to believe that you lack the capability to achieve a desirable goal?

Because you say that if you don't see how to do that, no-one else does either. There couldn't possibly be anyone smarter than you.

This is the part that you still don't get. Wanting something very, very much is not the same as being able to achieve it.

The problem with ideologues is that they have to deny reality when it contradicts their ideology.

Iraq couldn't really be a bigger mess than it is now yet you still champion it as some kind of progress.

Again it is you who denies that Iraq under Saddam was a holocaust, and replacing it with a democracy was one of the most beautiful things to happen in your lifetime. You are the ideologue who thinks that dictators should be free to dictate without external interference.

I think you confuse voting with democracy. Taliban back in control of how much of the country now?

Not as much as the Afghan government controls, which is all that matters in the long term, so long as we continue to fund the Afghan security forces.

Since 2003 in Iraq, and answer me honestly, would you guess that the rate of rape has a) increased or b) decreased

Are we talking about legal rape or illegal rape?

My main concern is legal rape. I want rape to be illegal and for the police to protect rape victims.

As far as illegal rape is concerned, I consider that to be an innate product of the culture of a country. E.g. I think Australia has more rape than say Taiwan. I don't expect Taiwan to invade Australia, because that won't help change the culture. So long as the Australian (and Taiwan/Iraq) government has made rape illegal, and stood up a police force to enforce that law, then I consider this to be the "best technology" we have. I'm not after Utopia, I'm just after people having the right to choose the "best technology".

(Don't forget rape is now legal in the Islamic State if the victim happens to be your slave and the militias have been accused of many rapes also)

After 9/11, how were you proposing to fight back against Islamic terrorists? America has successfully offloaded most of this difficult task onto Iraq and others to fight the worst of the Islamic nutcases. So now we have a democratic Iraq using its resources to fight against really bad Muslims who think that slavery and rape are OK. After this Muslim vs Muslim war has been won by our Muslim allies, it will be time to stick a stick into the Middle East in order to get more Islamic nutcases to show themselves. What's your alternative plan? Have a 9/11 once every decade or so for eternity?

If you answered a) how can you accuse anyone who objected to the war of being 'accessories to rape'.

Because they allied with the rapists instead of fighting the rapists. My policy has been consistently against rapists, whether Saddam, individual Iraqi ********, or ISIS. Whereas you only objected to the last 2 of those 3 sets of rapists.

If you answered b) please explain your reasoning

I draw a huge difference between actions of a government and actions of individuals.

Ditto, violent death
Ditto, destruction or property
Ditto, displacement of people
Ditto, torture
etc.

Again, in all of these things, my concern is LEGAL crimes, not ILLEGAL crimes.

Overall, has the standard of living a) increased or b) decreased for the average Iraqi?

As measured by GDP per capita on a PPP basis? I think it has increased. Regardless, my main concern is not economic, it is to ensure that the Iraqi government is protecting, not violating, human rights.

Does that include Sisi who your tax $$ are helping to keep in power? What about Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi, etc.

I don't believe in opening a warfront with allied dictators when there are enemy dictators (like Syria, Iran and North Korea) still around. I consider that to be strategic. But yes, my long term desire is to turn allied dictators into allied democracies.

As a neocon do you support the invasion of murderous Bahraini regime and the slavery sanctioning Qatari one also? Why not start in these Gulf countries, they are small and easier to 'fix'. Would help you get some practice at building democracies too, as looks like you need it.

As above, not at this point in time.

Do you object to your tax money being used to roll back democracy in Egypt btw, just because they voted for someone you didn't really like?

Yes, when we have a hostile population that is happy to see things like the 9/11 attacks happen, I don't mind a friendly dictator taking over, and I expect that dictator to do something to reeducate the population to stop it from being anti-Western. Much like the de-Nazification that happened in Germany. To me, the only sensible alternative to changing the culture is "glass desert".

 

[Augustus]

If you know of someone in the current Iraq who has abducted and raped a girl like Uday used to do, then please send the details to the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi government, and Iraqi and international media.

Like ISIS are doing now you mean?

I support fighting ISIS terrorists and non-ISIS terrorists the same way that I supported fighting Saddam. I consider that to be a perfectly moral position to take. Ignoring institutionalized rape by Saddam is something I consider to be horrible.

You do realise that there would be no ISIS if it wasn't for you fighting Saddam. So we fight to get rid of a tyrant, fight the next tyrant it creates, fight the one after that too when he pops up.

I'm not sure what the murder rate was under Saddam compared to post-Saddam. But even if I agree that the level of violence has increased, I draw a very different distinction between violence perpetrated by a dictator and violence perpetrated by individual terrorists against a democracy. And regardless of the murder rate that the Iraqi terrorists are able to achieve, I would not surrender my country to them any more than I would expect Britain to surrender to the IRA.

It's not individual terrorists, it is a state with a regular army. Just because it has no international legitimacy doesn't change that, de facto, it is a state. And without your help, it would never have been possible.

Well done!

No, so long as they are statistically valid, they provide the best way of obtaining data. Far better than having you just make up random numbers.

Here is one poll done by/for the BBC, a respectable source of information (more respectable than you just making up random numbers, anyway): BBC NEWS | Middle East | Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq

The numbers of interest from there are 48% supporting military action, 43% opposed. The roughly 50/50 split I keep referring to.

The poll is over 10 years old! Such a poll would be almost impossible today, which is why I had a problem with the idea of poll data. Anything recent?

Completely false. If people didn't care about who they were aligned to, they wouldn't bother voting. Instead, Iraq gets something like 75% turnout at elections. And now that Iraq's wealth is not being squandered by a dictator, they are free to use Iraq's oil wealth to create more electricity etc.

They had plenty of electricity under Saddam, much less now though. Corruption has almost certainly increased also. This is the standard after a transition to democracy, even in case of much smoother transitions, and almost certainly is true in a situation of total chaos.

Why would you think that it's not being squandered?

I prefer to tell them that I supported the fight AGAINST the caliphate too.

Helped create it then supported it's destruction. Nice.

Nonsense. ISIS don't have control of any oil. At one point they got a bit of oil in Syria and the facility was bombed from the air. Tell me how many barrels of oil per day you believe ISIS is selling.

Enough to support the statement that Iraqi oil is helping to build their caliphate.

More nonsense. Norway has oil too, and that didn't cause war. If Iraq doesn't behave like Norway then that's exactly why we need to be in Iraq. We need to convert Iraq into a clone of Norway.

They discovered it after they had a functioning democracy in the late 60s so it's hardly the same. Anyway point was that natural resources make it harder to transition to democracy (not impossible) as they tend to corrupt the democratic process and elites can make money without the need to advance the population. Disagree if you want, but there is plenty of evidence.

Again it is you who denies that Iraq under Saddam was a holocaust, and replacing it with a democracy was one of the most beautiful things to happen in your lifetime. You are the ideologue who thinks that dictators should be free to dictate without external interference.

Are we talking about legal rape or illegal rape?

Because they allied with the rapists instead of fighting the rapists. My policy has been consistently against rapists, whether Saddam, individual Iraqi ********, or ISIS. Whereas you only objected to the last 2 of those 3 sets of rapists.

How often can you repeat the same ludicrous straw man. Suggesting that attempting to overthrow dictators by force and drop a democracy into place is unlikely to be effective or improve conditions in the country becomes rampant support for Saddam, rape, holocausts, etc.

My main concern is legal rape. I want rape to be illegal and for the police to protect rape victims.

Having the vote does not make this happen magically. Having a country with functioning democratic institutions and legal accountability makes this happen. Money buys justice in the developing world.

You live in Australia with a functioning democracy, high standard of living, relatively uncorrupt justice system, high levels of accountability, etc.

I live in a democracy with a much lower standard of living, a totally corrupt justice system, low levels of accountability where the elite often literally get away with murder. many people here (not me) long for the days of the dictator, or at least want a political strongman in place.

Look at Russia where they prefer the authoritarian style of Putin rather than an actual democracy. Russia has the vote, the president is very popular and gets many votes, it's not a functioning democracy though.

A functioning democracy takes many generations to develop and can always regress at any point. You believe 'freedom' is the ultimate desire of everybody, many people would choose security over freedom any day of the week though. People are frequently willing to give up parts of their freedom, see Nazi Germany for example.

The idea that Western liberal democracy is the 'end of history' and ultimate goal for all peoples is utopian and ideological. There's certainly no actual evidence to believe it

After 9/11, how were you proposing to fight back against Islamic terrorists? America has successfully offloaded most of this difficult task onto Iraq and others to fight the worst of the Islamic nutcases. So now we have a democratic Iraq using its resources to fight against really bad Muslims who think that slavery and rape are OK. After this Muslim vs Muslim war has been won by our Muslim allies, it will be time to stick a stick into the Middle East in order to get more Islamic nutcases to show themselves. What's your alternative plan? Have a 9/11 once every decade or so for eternity?

Yes, when we have a hostile population that is happy to see things like the 9/11 attacks happen, I don't mind a friendly dictator taking over, and I expect that dictator to do something to reeducate the population to stop it from being anti-Western. Much like the de-Nazification that happened in Germany. To me, the only sensible alternative to changing the culture is "glass desert".

So the Middle East is a petrie dish where we make Islamic terrorist and poke them about a bit so they don't come over here? Worked a treat in Afghanistan in the 80s, absolutely no chance of that coming back to haunt you. And the ethics and logic of destroying countries to create terrorists in the name of ridding the world of terrorists is somewhat dubious.

And basically, people can be free, as long as they are pro-Western. If not, they need to 'reeducated' to be more pro-Western before they can be trusted to have their freedom back?

Dictators are the worst things in the world, except when they are 'friendly' dictators? Are they not rapists when they are 'friendly' rapists either? Oppression is terrible unless we repress people in the name of freedom to make them more pro-Western?

"Right listen up you Arabs, we're going to repress you all the way to freedom ok. But if you use that freedom to exercise your own freedom of conscience, we'll oppress you a little bit more until you learn that freedom really means doing what we want you to"

You'd have made a great communist with your reasoning.

Anyway, think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Hopefully history will prove you right, would love to be wrong on this one. can't say I hold much hope though.

 

[Parsimony]

What will? How do you use Atoms to create a will?

Although I hold that everything about our mind is emergent from the brain, will included, that's not a part of this debate. This is a thought experiment. We are assuming that the scientist can somehow create an artificial human being in its entirety, indistinguishable from a natural human in all ways. So what is your answer?

 

[gnostic]

if God is anything like the God in JOB, then I wouldn't worship him.

if God is anything like God in the David-Bathsheba episode, I wouldn't worship him. David and Bathsheba were the ones who sinned or committed crime, and yet it was the baby that was made to agonising illness before dying. that to me show God nothing more than tyrant and a monster.

that a god could ordered Saul's army to have soldiers kill every woman and every child because God hold grudges against the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15) is just another example that God is a petty tyrant, not worthy of worship.

if God is anything like the one who ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son to HIM, then God is nothing more than like the Christian satan-devil of the New Testament, that he would have to test Abraham's faith in such a fashion. it was a petty and cruel test.

if God is truly real, then I would indeed believe that he exist, and become a theist, but that doesn't mean I would follow and worship him, if God is anything the God of the bible.

 

[JustWondering]

If you created those feelings you would know they are fake. E.g. Computer programmers create characters who say Ouch! whenever they are hit. The programmer has no issues deleting the program whenever he feels like it since he knows those "feelings" are just responses he has programmed the character to give.

Sorry I don't accept your strawman argument. A self aware, sentient being would entail more than a simple computer program like you suggest. Their feelings would be just as real as our feelings are to us. Next you will likely claim some nonsense about humans having a spirit that sets us apart (we have to be special after all) from other creatures and that is what makes our experiences truly real. However, there are two big problems with that argument. Spirits were created and given to us by your god, since we are created our feelings must be fake (according to your own logic). Second, animals that don't have a spirit have feelings and can feel pain and suffering. Unless you really believe animals don't have real feelings, don't feel pain or suffer? So in the end, all of creation is a computer program to your god who will feel no remorse or hesitation when he hits the delete key. I didn't expect you to paint your god as such an uncaring and merciless being.

 

[kerravon]

Like ISIS are doing now you mean?

In the case of ISIS, you don't even need to bother to email the Iraqi government etc. They are already aware of the problem and are already dealing with it to the best of their ability. They are even receiving international assistance.

You do realise that there would be no ISIS if it wasn't for you fighting Saddam.

You may as well say that there would be no ISIS if the Syrian population didn't revolt against their dictator. Was it as wrong for the Syrian people to rise up against their dictator as it was for us to remove the Iraqi dictator?

So we fight to get rid of a tyrant, fight the next tyrant it creates, fight the one after that too when he pops up.

Absolutely. That is the exact best policy. The exact wrong policy is to insist that millions of people live under a cruel dictatorship for eternity because we can't be sure that some other bad actors may arise.

It's not individual terrorists, it is a state with a regular army. Just because it has no international legitimacy doesn't change that, de facto, it is a state. And without your help, it would never have been possible.

Well done!

You should instead say "well done" because I support the fight against ISIS, the same way I supported the fight against Saddam.

The poll is over 10 years old! Such a poll would be almost impossible today, which is why I had a problem with the idea of poll data. Anything recent?

So? What's wrong with a poll taken close to the liberation? Isn't that the best data? We had no ability to get a poll taken in February 2003, so we had no idea how much support there was in Iraq for a war. The only data we had was from Afghanistan where we knew the figure was 85%. Regardless, x% of Iraqis supported the war. Not 0% like you would like to see, and not 85% or more as I would like to see. And I don't really care about the 100-x % who opposed the war anyway. They are basically my enemy. My only interest is in the x% that are allies. Regardless, yes there are more recent polls, and they still show the same thing, ie approximately 50% of Iraqis supported the war. You can either search for them yourself if you think they will help your cause (it won't, the figures remained consistent for many years), or use the one I already gave you (which is undoubtedly better than figures you just fabricate yourself).

BTW, I misstated something previously. I said that polls were the best way to obtain data. That is incorrect. A referendum is best. Another thing that is good is election results to see what people choose when given a secret ballot. But polls are certainly better than fabricating figures.

They had plenty of electricity under Saddam,

Nonsense. There was a massive shortfall under Saddam.

much less now though.

More nonsense. It has gone from 4500 MW to 8000 MW according to Electricity sector in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corruption has almost certainly increased also.

How did you measure that? Or is this another thing you just made up? Even if it were true, are you adding this to your argument that we should have allowed Uday to abduct and rape women for eternity because a democratic Iraq is more corrupt than a cruel dictator?

This is the standard after a transition to democracy, even in case of much smoother transitions, and almost certainly is true in a situation of total chaos.

Again, no-one is saying that Iraq was expected to turn into Switzerland overnight. All we wanted to do was put Iraq on a PATH for self-improvement.

Why would you think that it's not being squandered?

Because democracies have checks and balances, while dictators don't. Regardless, even if you could definitively prove that the Iraqi democracy was squandering resources more than Saddam - which you can't - my answer is still the same. At least now the Iraqis have the ability to peacefully replace their leadership if they think someone else will be less corrupt. They did not have this choice under Saddam, and any objection to Saddam's brutal rule would lead to you having your tongue cut out.

Helped create it then supported it's destruction. Nice.

You helped keep a rapist in power so that he could rape for eternity. Nice.

Enough to support the statement that Iraqi oil is helping to build their caliphate.

No there isn't. As I already said, the Americans bombed the one oilfield in Syria that ISIS seized, to ensure that they didn't have access to any oil. Are you saying that the bombing campaign didn't work, or do you have evidence of an oil field that is under ISIS control that the Americans don't know about or didn't bomb for some reason?

They discovered it after they had a functioning democracy in the late 60s so it's hardly the same.

What next? Norway starts with a consonant while Iraq starts with a vowel, and only countries that start with a consonant can cope with natural resources?

Anyway point was that natural resources make it harder to transition to democracy

Nonsense. What countries do you have in mind that are failing to transition well due to natural resources, and how did you ascertain that it was due to natural resources and not culture?

(not impossible) as they tend to corrupt the democratic process and elites can make money without the need to advance the population. Disagree if you want, but there is plenty of evidence.

No, there isn't "plenty of evidence". And this nonsense about elites is something that is levelled against the USA too.

How often can you repeat the same ludicrous straw man. Suggesting that attempting to overthrow dictators by force and drop a democracy into place is unlikely to be effective or improve conditions in the country becomes rampant support for Saddam, rape, holocausts, etc.

That is EXACTLY what you are choosing. There are only two options to choose from, and you are choosing the option that allows Uday to rape for eternity. You should have been horrified at the existence of a government that raped and made it your personal mission to end that holocaust. Instead, you backed the rapist. It's not a straw man, it's EXACTLY what you did.

Having the vote does not make this happen magically. Having a country with functioning democratic institutions and legal accountability makes this happen. Money buys justice in the developing world.

Again, if you believe that Iraq's democracy is imperfect, then fine, neither is Australia's. In the case of both Iraq and Australia, the people are empowered to change their government. And you are free to contact some Iraqi people and explain to them what is wrong with their government and who you think they should vote for instead. All this is now possible. Before it wasn't.

You live in Australia with a functioning democracy, high standard of living, relatively uncorrupt justice system, high levels of accountability, etc.

I live in a democracy with a much lower standard of living, a totally corrupt justice system, low levels of accountability where the elite often literally get away with murder. many people here (not me) long for the days of the dictator, or at least want a political strongman in place.

Then VOTE for a strongman! What country are you in BTW?

Look at Russia where they prefer the authoritarian style of Putin rather than an actual democracy. Russia has the vote, the president is very popular and gets many votes, it's not a functioning democracy though.

It's certainly a crap country. But I consider the Russian people to be free. If you don't like Putin then vote for someone else. Putin is NOT the only person on the ballot paper. This is the "best technology" we have.

A functioning democracy takes many generations to develop and can always regress at any point.

And now we have STARTED that process in Iraq. If it were up to you, we still wouldn't have even STARTED in Iraq.

You believe 'freedom' is the ultimate desire of everybody,

No, I didn't say that. Some people want to live under an Islamic or communist dictatorship. Those people are my enemies though. And enemies of the x% of Iraqis too.

many people would choose security over freedom any day of the week though. People are frequently willing to give up parts of their freedom, see Nazi Germany for example.

Sure. Those people are not my allies and if they cause me any trouble I am happy to bomb them.

The idea that Western liberal democracy is the 'end of history' and ultimate goal for all peoples is utopian and ideological. There's certainly no actual evidence to believe it

There is plenty of evidence that this may well be the "end of history". People used to point to Taiwan and say "see - ethnic Chinese always need a dictator". It was a lie. Taiwan has successfully transitioned into a beautiful democracy. People then repeated the lie about ethnic Afghans and Arabs. Once again, Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia, and likely in the future Libya, have proven this to be a lie. It is your insistence that some people need a dictatorship that has no evidence.

So the Middle East is a petrie dish where we make Islamic terrorist

We don't make them. For some reason movements like Al Qaeda came into existence and they chose to attack a liberal democracy (USA) instead of attacking an Arab tyrant like Saddam. This is a very strange position to take, and we need to both understand and kill these people and do something to prevent a future 9/11.

and poke them about a bit so they don't come over here?

Yes, that is sound strategy.

Worked a treat in Afghanistan in the 80s,

There was nothing at all wrong with supporting Afghans to fight against the USSR during the Cold War. Defeating communism was the exact correct strategy.

absolutely no chance of that coming back to haunt you.

Correct. I am very happy that communism was defeated. I am not haunted by it.

And the ethics and logic of destroying countries to create terrorists in the name of ridding the world of terrorists is somewhat dubious.

Straw men. I'm not trying to destroy countries, I'm trying to liberate them. And the purpose is not to create terrorists, it is so that non-terrorists can live in freedom and be allied to us in the War on Terror.

And basically, people can be free, as long as they are pro-Western.

Roughly correct. My priority is to defeat enemies of the free world, not stand up enemy democracies.

If not, they need to 'reeducated' to be more pro-Western before they can be trusted to have their freedom back?

Correct. It is my priority to either kill or re-educate enemies. Just as was done in Germany and Japan. This is the exact correct strategy IMO.

Dictators are the worst things in the world, except when they are 'friendly' dictators?

Enemies are the worst thing, not dictators.

Are they not rapists when they are 'friendly' rapists either?

They're still rapists, but I don't support opening warfronts with friendly dictators. The same way I didn't want the West to attack USSR when USSR was busy helping us against the Nazis.

Oppression is terrible unless we repress people in the name of freedom to make them more pro-Western?

Correct. I have no problem at all in repressing enemy civilians. Repress, re-educate, eliminate, as is required.

"Right listen up you Arabs, we're going to repress you all the way to freedom ok. But if you use that freedom to exercise your own freedom of conscience, we'll oppress you a little bit more until you learn that freedom really means doing what we want you to"

You'd have made a great communist with your reasoning.

I instead made a great capitalist and a great freedom-fighter and a great anti-communist with my reasoning. You would have made a great Chamberlain with your reasoning. Why shouldn't the Nazis be allowed to rise up? What's wrong with gassing Jews anyway? Also, when you say "doing what we want you to", what horrible thing do you think I am trying to force others to do? Is it wrong to say "you must not rape" and "you must not murder innocent people"?

Anyway, think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Hopefully history will prove you right, would love to be wrong on this one. can't say I hold much hope though.

It's a great shame that you are already ignoring the history of Afghanistan and Iraq having absolutely amazing and beautiful democratic elections. That should be enough to demonstrate that you are wrong already.


P.S. I have searched for more opinion polls from Iraq, and found one from 2009, which shows data going back to 2004: BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraqis 'more upbeat about future'

See Q8. There was a high of 49% supporting the war in 2004 and 2008, and a low of 37% in 2007. Like I said, x is about 50, consistently, but even if x was 2, I only care about that 2% of Iraqis who are my friends and allies. My enemies I actively want dead, I don't care about them.

 

[ether-ore]

How would your life be affected if video evidence was found of Moses parting the red Sea; Jesus walking on water; God using his own finger to write the ten commandments. And furthermore that video was brought to you by Jesus himself with Adam, Noah, Abraham with a few cherubim and some trumpets for good measure.

If this happened, how do you think it would change you? Do you think you would start praying, stop lying, cease from pride and lust? Would you go preach the gospel? Would your political views change?

What I'm actually asking is, honestly speaking, how much of what you do, think and say that is contrary what the bible teaches - ten commandments, beatitudes etc. - is because of your uncertainty about the existence of God and the accuracy of the bible and how much of it is a result of you simply not being willing to live your life differently?

You make an excellent point. The scriptures themselves say that witnessing miracles does not convert. Conversion comes because one comes to understand their own limitations and inadequacies relative to salvation and their complete dependency on the atonement of Jesus Christ through repentance and baptism. One must recognize that their sins stand in the way of peace of mind and being at peace with God concerning His eternal laws, and they also stand in the way of their returning to the presence of God after this life is over where only a fullness of joy can be had.

If as you propose, that Christ would appear to someone who had not yet repented and was therefore still in their sins; that would not be a joyful meeting, because that individual would remain and die in their sins

 

[JoStories]

You perhaps don't realise just how important what you have just said is. People are always asking for evidence to know that there is a God but when you come down to it few actually know how much proof is "enough".

I can honestly say I have enough proof of my own, which I can't prove to anyone else and admit that, that I believe in God, but follow a Buddhist path as it is more in keeping, IMO, to what Christ taught. The whole Paul thing sets me off for the Biblical God. His views are simply too wrong headed to be a part of what Christ taught

 

[JoStories]

Thanda said: I have never done an investigation of Saddam's genocide infact. I only know that Americans always talk about them to make their bombing a country back by 50 years seem more palatable.
Here, I totally agree with you Thanda. I loathe the actions of this bloody country ( no pun intended) where 'we' and trust me, its not me that is a part of this freaking thinking, can invade and try to enforce our ideals, which are inherently flawed btw, on another country where we have no bloody business trying to enforce a damn thing. Whether that country be Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or any other, we have NO business being there. NONE. and to bomb them and then espouse Christian ideals is the height of hypocrisy. Bush-- the Shrub and that includes both, were idiots. And so, now, is Obama, whom in the first term I voted for. Now I would like to emigrate as this country is f**ked, IMO.

 

[JoStories]

You make an excellent point. The scriptures themselves say that witnessing miracles does not convert. Conversion comes because one comes to understand their own limitations and inadequacies relative to salvation and their complete dependency on the atonement of Jesus Christ through repentance and baptism. One must recognize that their sins stand in the way of peace of mind and being at peace with God concerning His eternal laws, and they also stand in the way of their returning to the presence of God after this life is over where only a fullness of joy can be had.

If as you propose, that Christ would appear to someone who had not yet repented and was therefore still in their sins; that would not be a joyful meeting, because that individual would remain and die in their sins

What is sin and how does the avoidance of that concept lead to this alleged salvation? First of all, one must have a clear understanding of what this concept is. What may be sin for you may not be for my path. In the Buddhist path, wrongdoing is recognized as lessons we must learn from. And also, in the Buddhist path, we strive for enlightenment. Why do I need this salvation through a lesser god to reach that enlightenment? Do you have proof that the path I follow is not as true and right as the one you do?

I don't understand, as your second paragraph states, how you can assume that God would ONLY appear or make God's presence known to Christians only. I have had several experiences of God. Who are you to say they were not truly God? Of course, I cannot prove this assertion but I know in my heart that what I experienced was God. Can you prove me wrong?

 

[JoStories]

Wow.

Ok. No further comments. For the moment.

Ciao

- viole

I had the same reaction Viole. I cannot understand that comment. To me, it is no better than what Hitler did. Wow is an understatement in my opinion. Holy merde comes closer.

 

[JoStories]

I'm not too interested in the propaganda. If there really were all those good reasons they would have been provided BEFORE the war not after we all realised the WMDs story was a lie. Your country's government is extremely corrupt. So I am not impressed when they topple another corrupt government.
I have no tears for Saddam but I have tears for the hundreds of thousands that have been killed and are currently being killed because of US meddling.

I do as well. Its hypocrisy to the highest nth degree there is. But there are others doing the same and unless you live in Switzerland, all countries have some degree of involvement in this mess.

 

[ether-ore]

What is sin and how does the avoidance of that concept lead to this alleged salvation? First of all, one must have a clear understanding of what this concept is. What may be sin for you may not be for my path. In the Buddhist path, wrongdoing is recognized as lessons we must learn from. And also, in the Buddhist path, we strive for enlightenment. Why do I need this salvation through a lesser god to reach that enlightenment? Do you have proof that the path I follow is not as true and right as the one you do?

I don't understand, as your second paragraph states, how you can assume that God would ONLY appear or make God's presence known to Christians only. I have had several experiences of God. Who are you to say they were not truly God? Of course, I cannot prove this assertion but I know in my heart that what I experienced was God. Can you prove me wrong?

I cannot prove you wrong. Neither can I prove my position. All I can do is suggest my own reasoning. First, it has been my understanding of Buddhism that there was no belief in a god as such. The Buddha never claimed to be a god. This enlightenment you refer to is an admirable thing, but as I understand it, it has little to do with an afterlife unless reincarnation can be considered an afterlife. But even that suggests little in the way of advancement since all believed instances of it bring men back to the same conditions in mortality. The Christianity I believe in tells me that I am an eternal being whom God made to be His children and He is assisting us along a path of progression wherein we use our agency to choose to follow His laws or not. However, even doing all we can to follow God's commands, we using our agency still make mistakes and since no unclean thing can inherit the Kingdom of God (the afterlife we desire), we are faced with a dilemma. Even though we may have repented, we in using our agency, still have sinned, which makes us unclean, so God sent His Son who also has the status of God, or in other words, God Himself takes upon Him our sins as long as we do repent. Without repentance and the atonement of Jesus Christ, we cannot have the afterlife of joy and real enlightenment which we would likely want.

 

[kerravon]

Whether that country be Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or any other, we have NO business being there. NONE. and to bomb them and then espouse Christian ideals is the height of hypocrisy.

This is indeed a very relevant comment. How on earth can Christians claim to be Christians while killing people? The fact that many Christians around the world refused to assist in Iraq is exactly why I advocate Christians converting to Islam, specifically the Mu'tazilite sect of Islam. The Muslims are far more honest in admitting the need to use force. Whereas if Christians are busy turning the other cheek, they may even refuse to ring the police to report a rape in progress. They may even say "I have no business interfering - the argument is between that man and that screaming woman". If the observer is white, and the rapist and rape victim are black, the white person may similarly say "none of my business, this is a black matter". Substitute "black" with "Iraq" and we can see effectively the exact same thing. Regardless, here is the ideology that I encourage American Christians to adopt if they aren't doing so already: The Holy Book of Mu'tazilah

There's no need for you to emigrate. The US is currently the most benevolent country in the world, even on a per capita basis. That wasn't always true, e.g. they were immoral for turning up late for WW1 and WW2, but ever since Pearl Harbor there has been no country at all that has done more to protect and expand the free world as the Americans. Read this: Anti-Subjugator: Thanks America

 

[Thanda]

Sorry I don't accept your strawman argument. A self aware, sentient being would entail more than a simple computer program like you suggest. Their feelings would be just as real as our feelings are to us. Next you will likely claim some nonsense about humans having a spirit that sets us apart (we have to be special after all) from other creatures and that is what makes our experiences truly real. However, there are two big problems with that argument. Spirits were created and given to us by your god, since we are created our feelings must be fake (according to your own logic). Second, animals that don't have a spirit have feelings and can feel pain and suffering. Unless you really believe animals don't have real feelings, don't feel pain or suffer? So in the end, all of creation is a computer program to your god who will feel no remorse or hesitation when he hits the delete key. I didn't expect you to paint your god as such an uncaring and merciless being.

But that is my point. You cannot create a self aware creature because self awareness cannot be created. Secondly you are operating under the false assumption that I believe animals have no spirit.

God did not create what is our true essence - our consciousness and will. And that is why our love and obedience is his greatest prize.

 

[Pudding]

But that is my point. You cannot create a self aware creature because self awareness cannot be created. Secondly you are operating under the false assumption that I believe animals have no spirit.

God did not create what is our true essence - our consciousness and will. And that is why our love and obedience is his greatest prize.

Can you prove that in the future technology cannot create a self aware creature? It's a quite meaningless question i think.

Can you prove the existence of negative/non-existence?

Just like some believer's question: can atheist prove god(s) does not exist?

Why you can make an assumption in the op "what if a God exist" being possible, but cannot accept the assumption that "what if men can create self aware creature..." be possible?

 

[JustWondering]

You cannot create a self aware creature because self awareness cannot be created.

I'm sure someone will create a self aware creature eventually, its only a matter of time. You sound like people back in the day that proclaimed man couldn't fly.

Secondly you are operating under the false assumption that I believe animals have no spirit.

Why would animals need a spirit? Do they go to heaven too?

God did not create what is our true essence - our consciousness and will. And that is why our love and obedience is his greatest prize.

When reading the bible it appears quite clear god wants obedience. I don't know about the love part.

 

[Thanda]

I'm sure someone will create a self aware creature eventually, its only a matter of time. You sound like people back in the day that proclaimed man couldn't fly.

I'm quite sure they won't.

Why would animals need a spirit? Do they go to heaven too?

Would be a terrible heaven without animals don't you think?

When reading the bible it appears quite clear god wants obedience. I don't know about the love part.

Then it is questionable how much of the Bible you have actually read.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm quite sure they won't.



Would be a terrible heaven without animals don't you think?



Then it is questionable how much of the Bible you have actually read.

Well for that, you need only read the 10 commandments.