Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 89 90 91 92 93 ... 188
Send Topic Print
spineless apologetics (Read 354769 times)
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1350 - Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:16am
 
Karnal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 9:57pm:
Call me old fashioned, old boy.

Would you care to answer the question?

Feel free to use capitals.



Did already, pillock.

Soren wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 6:03pm:
Karnal wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 9:57pm:
HOW did Uncle bring democracy to Iraq?


By overthrowing the dictator, setting up political institutions ahead of democratic elections, overseeing democratic elections, supporting the democratically elected government.

After that, the Iraqis farked it up, good and proper. And so now they are bleeding, once more. 


Time to isolate the Muslim Middle East. How about a Boycott, Divest and Sanction regime against all Muslim countries that have had Western assistance and farked it up? I am all for it. Include the Saudis, the Gypos, the Iraqis, Pakis, Afghans, the lot.

Ban them all from entering the West until they sort themselves out. Boycott and sanction anyone who does business with them. Let China decide whether it needs the Muslim Arabs or the West.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1351 - Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:24am
 
What democratic "political institutions" did the US set up S?

Details if you can - meaningless bumper-sticker slogans are rather easy.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1352 - Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:35am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:24am:
What democratic "political institutions" did the US set up S?

Details if you can - meaningless bumper-sticker slogans are rather easy.



It's not for the US to set up the institutions, it's for the Iraqis.

The US gave them the chance to do it, a chance they did not have under Saddam. 



Muslims everywhere have opportunities to drag themselves out of their medieval mindset but they squander all of them, especially the Arabs. They will stick to 7th century ethical, political, philosophical standards because they swallowed the nonsense about 'last prophet' and 'immutable, eternal'  Koran.







Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95896
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1353 - Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:44am
 
Best to use capitals, old boy.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1354 - Feb 6th, 2016 at 9:21am
 
What democratic "political institutions" did the US set up S?
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1355 - Feb 6th, 2016 at 11:34am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 9:21am:
What democratic "political institutions" did the US set up S?

It's not for the US to set up the institutions, it's for the Iraqis.

The US gave them the chance to do it, a chance they did not have under Saddam.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1356 - Feb 6th, 2016 at 12:15pm
 
You just said they set up "political institutions ahead of democratic elections".

I just asked what these institutions were.

Your answer is to say it wasn't for the US to set them up - ergo they didn't set them up (presumably)?

Clearly you are backing away from the original claim. You are just proving S that your entire anti-Islam mantra is nothing more than cheap slogans that you can't elaborate on, and abandon whenever you are asked to.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95896
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1357 - Feb 6th, 2016 at 12:28pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 12:15pm:
You just said they set up "political institutions ahead of democratic elections".

I just asked what these institutions were.

Your answer is to say it wasn't for the US to set them up - ergo they didn't set them up (presumably)?

Clearly you are backing away from the original claim. You are just proving S that your entire anti-Islam mantra is nothing more than cheap slogans that you can't elaborate on, and abandon whenever you are asked to.


But the old boy will stick to oppress the bastards, you can guarantee it. It’s the sole reason he supported the invasion of Iraq in the first place.

You know, fireworks.

The old boy changed his mind when Uncle got egg all over his face, but he still supports the invasion in principle. We did, after all blow up the tinted races.

The only thing the old boy disagrees with today is the vague platform of bringing them freedom and democracy. Iraq should be recolonised, not liberated. White man’s burden, innit.

Still, when things don’t go according to plan, the old boy changes tack.  The old boy since said he was mistaken to call for the democratisation of Iraq, but he takes great pleasure at the mess that’s been created. The old boy sees the foreign destruction of the state of Iraq as proof that the tinted races can’t be trusted.

Sure there’s no detail to any of this, but that’s not the point. We have had this discussion over many years. The old boy’s point is to get the tinted races back for being tinted. If you question such a point of view, you’re stupid, mendacious, racist, bigoted, unfashionable and reactionary.

Mind you, the old boy does drink in the evenings. His daytime posts are often attempts to justify or wriggle out of his nightime posts. Too much schnapps, you see.

It’s an.old boy’s perogative to change his mind.  Always absolutely never ever.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 6th, 2016 at 3:53pm by Karnal »  
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1358 - Feb 7th, 2016 at 1:16pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 12:15pm:
You just said they set up "political institutions ahead of democratic elections".

I just asked what these institutions were.

Your answer is to say it wasn't for the US to set them up - ergo they didn't set them up (presumably)?

Clearly you are backing away from the original claim. You are just proving S that your entire anti-Islam mantra is nothing more than cheap slogans that you can't elaborate on, and abandon whenever you are asked to.



For example:

On Benchmarks: Institutions and Violence in Iraq
Stephan Haggard
Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies
University of California San Diego
James Long
Department of Political Science
University of California San Diego

Abstract
Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has sought to encourage
institutional developments in Iraq that would contribute to national reconciliation and
mitigate sectarian and insurgent violence. In these reform efforts, including recent
“benchmarks,” the Bush administration has drawn on power-sharing and federalist
models. The purpose of these efforts is to overcome the political dilemmas associated
with the relative shift in power among the Sunni, Shia and Kurdish communities, and to
blunt the majoritarian features of the political system in particular. A review of the
theoretical and empirical literature suggests that the record of these institutional reforms
in mitigating violence and ending civil wars is not encouraging. A detailed history of
institutional reform efforts in Iraq shows that proposed institutional reforms have not
constituted an endogenous political equilibrium, have not been credible, or have had
perverse consequences. These findings suggest the limits on institutional reform and the
importance of alternative means of restraining violence.


https://gps.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty/haggard/haggard_publications_benchmarks.pdf


The US gave them the chance and they squandered it.  As the last sentence of the Abstract says, you can lead to sectarian Muslims to the opportunity of democracy and civilised politics but you can't make them think and adopt them. They reverted to what they have been doing for 1400 years - sectarian violence.

The conclusion on 'restraining violence'? " A coalition of forces neighbouring Iraq: "...the necessary although not sufficient  conditions for a settlement may lie in negotiating a “regime of restraint” on the part of Iraq’s neighbors—Syria, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia—and on the part of the United States. Such a “regime of restraint” takes us far beyond institutions and benchmarks.
But as we have suggested throughout, its success would still depend on domestic political developments over which outside engineers have exerted surprisingly little direct control."

How the sectarian neighbourhood would work together - the Saudis and the Iranians working together?? -  is as much a mystery and a dream as was giving Muslim Arabs freedom and a shot at peaceful democracy.  It was a naive dream to imagine that they are 'like us'. They are nothing like us.  Look at every country from Pakistan to Mauritania. With the exception if Israel, they are all disfunctional Muslim hell-holes.





Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 7th, 2016 at 1:23pm by Soren »  
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1359 - Feb 7th, 2016 at 1:30pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:24am:
What democratic "political institutions" did the US set up S?

Details if you can - meaningless bumper-sticker slogans are rather easy.





Following is the list of benchmarks included in HR 2206, Section 1314b (“Conditioning of Future United States Strategy in Iraq on the Iraqi Government's Record of Performance on Its Benchmarks.”). The legislation required reports on progress with respect to the benchmarks on July 15 and September 15, 2007. The legislation also required progress on each benchmark in order to expend economic support funds, but with a explicit waiver authority.

(i) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.

(ii) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification.

(iii) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.

(iv) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semiautonomous regions.

(v) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.

(vi) Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.

(vii) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central  government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.

(viii) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.

(ix) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.

(x) Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and tomake tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S commanders, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

(xi) Ensuring that the Iraqi Security Forces are providing even handed enforcement of the law.

(xii) Ensuring that, according to President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said `the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation'.

(xiii) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.

(xiv) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

(xv) Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.

(xvi) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.

(xvii) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

(xviii) Ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces.



But of course the result has been the same as ever:

Take up the White Man's burden, In patience to abide,
  To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain
  To seek another's profit, And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden, The savage wars of peace—
  Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought,
  Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden, No tawdry rule of kings,
  But toil of serf and sweeper, The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread,
  Go mark them with your living, And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden And reap his old reward:
  The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:—
  "Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?"



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95896
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1360 - Feb 7th, 2016 at 1:35pm
 
Quote:
A detailed history of institutional reform efforts in Iraq shows that proposed institutional reforms... have not been credible, or have had perverse consequences.


Thanks, old boy, you’ve done it again.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 21785
A cat with a view
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1361 - Feb 7th, 2016 at 1:45pm
 
Soren wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:35am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 8:24am:
What democratic "political institutions" did the US set up S?

Details if you can - meaningless bumper-sticker slogans are rather easy.



It's not for the US to set up the institutions, it's for the Iraqis.

The US gave them the chance to do it, a chance they did not have under Saddam. 



Muslims everywhere have opportunities to drag themselves out of their medieval mindset but they squander all of them, especially the Arabs. They will stick to 7th century ethical, political, philosophical standards because they swallowed the nonsense about 'last prophet' and 'immutable, eternal'  Koran.







IMAGE.....
...

Even when moslems have the system of government that they demand to have, ......moslems will CONTINUALLY/INCESSANTLY WHINE ABOUT THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES.

Blaming everyone except themselves, for the consequences of their own choices.



ISLAM - The Religion of Peace.


ISLAM - The Religion of Perpetual Outrage.


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1362 - Feb 7th, 2016 at 1:50pm
 
Karnal wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 1:35pm:
Quote:
A detailed history of institutional reform efforts in Iraq shows that proposed institutional reforms... have not been credible, or have had perverse consequences.


Thanks, old boy, you’ve done it again.

Exactly - it was a naive dream to imagine that institutional reform was all that these people who are 'just like us' needed. Because they are nothing like us.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49075
At my desk.
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1363 - Feb 7th, 2016 at 2:01pm
 
Quote:
Abstract
Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has sought to encourage
institutional developments in Iraq that would contribute to national reconciliation and
mitigate sectarian and insurgent violence. In these reform efforts, including recent
“benchmarks,” the Bush administration has drawn on power-sharing and federalist
models. The purpose of these efforts is to overcome the political dilemmas associated
with the relative shift in power among the Sunni, Shia and Kurdish communities, and to
blunt the majoritarian features of the political system in particular. A review of the
theoretical and empirical literature suggests that the record of these institutional reforms
in mitigating violence and ending civil wars is not encouraging. A detailed history of
institutional reform efforts in Iraq shows that proposed institutional reforms have not
constituted an endogenous political equilibrium, have not been credible, or have had
perverse consequences. These findings suggest the limits on institutional reform and the
importance of alternative means of restraining violence.


Robinson and Acemoğlu would have a lot to say and that.

Karnal and Gandalf would just insist they should have let the Baathists run the place. Someone has to make the trains run on time.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95896
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1364 - Feb 7th, 2016 at 2:12pm
 
Soren wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 1:50pm:
Karnal wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 1:35pm:
Quote:
A detailed history of institutional reform efforts in Iraq shows that proposed institutional reforms... have not been credible, or have had perverse consequences.


Thanks, old boy, you’ve done it again.

Exactly - it was a naive dream to imagine that institutional reform was all that these people who are 'just like us' needed. Because they are nothing like us.




Your list of "reforms" were either not credible (like the redistribution of petroleum resources) or had perverse consequences (like de-Ba’athification). Your own quoted sources argue this.

Were you just showing G you can do a little research? Good work, dear boy, there’s that University of Balogney training showing.

But what they failed to impart, old chap, is that your sources should back up your argument. We don’t just quote a lot of words and hope no one reads them (apart from FD, of course). We keep an open.mind, do our reading, and base our argument on that.

This is, after all, the way we produce knowledge in the West. We base our argument on facts, not the other way around. If you don’t mind me saying, your own method is a tad unorthadox, but the truth always comes out in the end.

It is a jolly world, no?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 89 90 91 92 93 ... 188
Send Topic Print