Isn’t KBR the Halliburton subsidiary where the female employee (dammit, what was her name?) was gang-raped, then kept in a trailer so she couldn’t talk to anyone, who only got loose because one of her “guards” slipped her a cell phone so she could call home for help?

If so, I must confess myself unsurprised that they’re not proving real helpful to the legitimate troops.

What a fucking disgrace.  How the hell did the United States Defense Department collapse to such a level that we can’t even keep our soldiers’ thirst quenched?  It really seems like when you plan to keep personnel in Iraq, in the summer, you need to make sure you have the fucking water situation under control.

Ahh, the Free Market! Is there anything it can’t do?

The enraging reality of doing things like this to your grunts aside, such stories represent a tremendous opportunity for the new administration to be seen genuinely caring about the soldiers rather than the lip-service given by Bush (yes to hagiography, no to decent medical and psychiatric care, yes to using them as empire cannon fodder for chickenhawks, no to protecting them from corporate exploitation).

But I don’t think that Obama will take it.

Isn’t KBR the Halliburton subsidiary where the female employee (dammit, what was her name?) was gang-raped, then kept in a trailer so she couldn’t talk to anyone, who only got loose because one of her “guards” slipped her a cell phone so she could call home for help?

I think she worked directly for the main Halliburton office.  But yeah, more or less.

I can’t wait to hear from the wingnuts that this is entirely Obama’s fault.  That said, I also hope this brings down hell on the government contractors that fucked up.  Watching Halliburton justify a de-privatization of the military by exposing repeated fuck-ups like this would be icing on the cake.

When the Easter Uprising happened in 2004, a whole battalion steamed down from Fallujah to help bail us out. The fighting was fierce, right up to the gates of the company.

  KBR refused to put in more latrines or showers until somebody kissed their ass. I remember one of these assholes saying, “You’re just a Reservist.”

  They complained that because every soldier was too busy, you know, fighting, that they had to work long hours.

KBR is known by its employees as ‘Kick Back and Relax.” It’s obscene that they get to goof off, get paid huge amounts of money, and then sneer at the soldiers.

I’m pretty sure that if you have to tell your soldiers to go steal water, your war has failed.

I’m also pretty sure that “supporting the troops” includes making sure they don’t dry up and die in the desert. Taking bets on the first wingnut to defend this shit.

KBR’s shoddy work also brought our troops in Iraq showers that electrocute the bathers. Just the sort of company you’d expect Cheney to be involved with.

That said, and recognising that Bush is 100% responsible for the mess in Mesopotamia, it’s really time for Obama to support our troops by getting them out of this tribal pesthole.

It’s outrageous.  It’s also something that has gone on for YEARS.  And by years I mean centuries.  Hoarding and diversion of military supplies by civilian contractors is an old, old, old story.

I can’t believe that crap like this keep on coming to light and it’s the liberals who “don’t support the troops”.

Fiction is so much more pretty than reality for these freaks who do this to our own military.
I asked my dad the other day if he’s really angry about this and he’s a very low info person so of course he’s never heard of these indicents.
I should call him back to see if he’s looked into the things that I told him about (gave him websites, news articles and everything). My guess- maybe not. He’s got cancer from Agent Orange and a lot of the fight he had in him is gone.

It seems that no one wishes to acknowledge who is the Commander-in-Chief.

Try doing a search on the word “Obama” on this Web page, moron.

Seriously, are you trying to demonstrate that you have the reading comprehension skills of a 3rd grader? (no offense to 3rd graders).

Zifnab, you only had to wait 19 minutes.

What’s weird about this, from a meta level, is that the whole “civilian contractor” notion goes against the notion of “do what you do best”.  Ever since ww2 it has been pretty much accurate conventional wisdom that nobody kept their troops supplied as well as the Americans.  Their ability to move massive amounts of supplies from warehouse A in Wherever, USA to The Soldiers’ Hands has always been the subject of admiration, nay, awe from astonished allies and enemies. 

So, naturally, the question arises: “if the US military does this better than anybody else on the planet and better than anybody has ever done in the history of the planet, why change?”.  The answer is, sadly, “so that the corporate masters of their political masters and your multi-starred commanders can make shitloads of money at the expense of your combat viability, morale and possibly your life”.

Add to that the soldiers given only one meal a day in Iraq in the areas Halliburton thought too far out in the country to bother with.

I donate through the websites anysoldier.com, in which on duty soldiers can request from us civilians the things they need and want.

You’d also be surprised (horrified) by the basics of daily life the Halliburton PXs don’t stock (toothpaste, sheets, socks—yeah, our soldiers are now forced to buy those basics themselves, if they can even get them.)

this news should signal to the Obama administration that those serving on his watch surely don’t need to suffer this indignity and level of resource depletion.

Reading comprehension FAAAAAAAIIIIIIL.

I should clarify—that was directed to our lovely troll.

judybrowni….such a site exists? What a commentary on our situation, when the people who sent our troops into harm’s way are doing such a poor job providing for their needs that they have to appeal directly to us. I’m gonna go see if I can buy someone a pack of socks.

NEWS FLASH - Bush is not in charge.

No, he’s not.  But Halliburton (a.k.a. Cheney’s corporate buddies) was given all of these plum war-profiteering contracts during his watch - one more of his fuckups for Obama to fix.  Our problem with Obama is that he hasn’t gotten around to it yet, and he needs to.  Yesterday.

Franklin, I think that you are confused between two different concepts:

Fault, which speaks to which people are to blame for the existence of a problem.
and
Responsibility, which speaks to which people have carriage of the problem and who can be held accountable for not fixing it.

Bush, Cheney* and the JCS and the Defense Department are at fault for the situation and were responsible for its continuation and exacerbation.  Granted, the civilianization of the supply chain predates the Bush presidency (LBJ was totally tied into KBR, for example) but it was that administration that raised the financial and efficiency problems to ludicrous and criminal levels.  Obama is responsible for its continuation on his watch, and, if he does not move to correct it he will be (note the future tense) at fault for the problem if it continues.

* - I’m trying to picture any other G-8 country (other than Russia) that would have tolerated its VP or head of government to be part of a contract where he earns millions and millions of extra dollars if a chief governmental supplier gets no-bid contracts, gouges the government, cheats the soldiers, electrocutes those in its care and kidnaps crime victims to stop them squealing and, you know what, nobody else is that crazy.

I did. No one seems to hold him responsible.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Timmy Obama mayoral administration? We’re talking about the Barack Obama Presidential administration, which implies current responsibility.

It’s like they’re living in the past. It’s all Bush’s fault.

For invading Iraq 6 years ago? You bet it is. And getting business for KBR, a Cheney portfolio company, played a small part in that decision.

So really, what was it that impaired your cognitive processes? Nearly strangled by the umbilical cord, were you? Licked a bit too much lead-based paint off your nursery walls? A few too many disciplinary swats on the head from your Pappy? Or perhaps you inherited the “noble blood” that results from inbreeding. You’ll forgive my curiousity—it’s not often I get to interact with someone of your mental calibre.

it’s not often I get to interact with someone of your mental calibre.

Note to self: Gracchus does not teach grade school.

Note to self: Gracchus does not teach grade school.

Hey, I have nieces and nephews in grade school—unless they’re operating under the stress of being caught misbehaving, the older ones demonstrate more mental acuity than our troll does.

Fair enough.  Kinda one-dimensional, isn’t he?  I wish that more of them would rise to Dana’s standard out of troll land and into just wrong and infuriating-ville

I see that in this thread, Franklin thinks the government should be allowed to break contracts at will, but in the credit card thread, he thinks that the government breaking contracts at will is a sign of the heavy hand of socialism.

Which is it, Franklin?  Can the government break contracts or can they not?  If they can’t break contracts, what’s your plan for dealing with the KBR contractors that we’re stuck with?

Gracchus, Iraq is not a tribal pesthole. It’s green and beautiful and full of amazing, historic architecture, and the people are lovely, friendly, and kind. So many of them wanted us to succeed and were so happy at the beginning. Women had better rights under Saddam than they did under us, thanks to Rummie’s ludicrous insistence on a lean fighting force that could win a war, but not a peace.

Please do not insult Iraq based on the actions of a minority of insurgents. You can thank Rummie for the insurgents, too. He dissolved the Army and the Ba’ath Party. If he had not, there would be jobs and men would be able to support their families, which is paramount to male dignity in the Middle East.

Or we could, you know, give KBR’s jobs to the Iraqis. Wow, what a strange idea—-give people jobs, money, create a less hostile environment, give Iraqis a hand in their own country’s reconstruction…..Nah.

Of COURSE it’s KBR/Halliburton.

Did you know Cheney had the Army violate its own rules about paying contracts when it comes to Halliburton et. al.?  They not only got no bid contracts, but Cheney made sure the Army paid the contracts off 100% including bonuses despite auditing errors that normally preclude payment.

Electrocuting soldiers, dehydrating them, and sending millions home for nothing.  Obama needs to fire these assholes and demand adherence and transparency.  Our soldiers deserve the best; they certainly don’t deserve to be denied basic food, water, and equipment.

Oh, Halliburton was in the red when Bush took over.  Cheney was worth $2 million.

The Iraq War was a godsend to both.  Cheney was always paid more in ‘deferred comp’ from Halliburton than he was as VP, and by the time he left office was worth $98 million—more than W.

He raided the treasury for his personal gain at the expense of our troops lives and those of the 2 million + Iraqis who have been killed, maimed, widowed, orphaned and displaced.

There is a special place in hell reserved for him.  I hope the Hague can hurry him to it.

I’m pretty sure that if you have to tell your soldiers to go steal water, your war has failed.

Alexander’s army and many of the conquering Romans made an art out of looting provisions from the locals.  Kind of part and parcel to maintaining an army, historically/unfortunately.*

*Looting from locals and this story are still all kinds of wrong.

Anysoldier.com is indeed a real website which posts the requests of soldiers posted overseas.

Some of the requests are simply for reminders of home—cards and letters—or the little luxuries we take for granted—magazines, books, DVDs, snacks—but all too often, the soldiers have to ask for basic hygenie stuff, food and what I had assumed the armed forces routinely issued: socks, underwear, sheets, pillows.

I send out at least a couple boxes each Christmas.

Alexander’s army and many of the conquering Romans made an art out of looting provisions from the locals.

That is standard throughout history right up to the point of the development of railroads. Logistics count, and there’s a distinct limitation on how far you can shift stuff using animal power.  When moving large groups of men (and their associated hangers-on) from A to B, you cannot go too far from A before you have to start looting resources from the area you’re passing over.  Hell, it comes up in Sun Tzu.

Or we could, you know, give KBR’s jobs to the Iraqis.

Why would we do that when we can pay KBR to bring in poorly-paid workers from India and let KBR pocket the difference?  I mean, it’s not like the Iraqis were making any contributions to Bush’s re-election fund.
/snark

If Obama’s administration doesn’t do something about this, he loses my vote.  Period.  I’m talking like fucking try the contractors and put them in prison (the fact that I want to shoot them in the face is why I am not in charge of this).  As a Marine, I am not having this shit.

Gracchus - that was a really shitty comment about Iraq being a pesthole. Arab-bashing isn’t going to bring the troops home any sooner. I am disturbed by the amount of bigotry against Arabs and Muslims I see on progressive blogs (usually in the comments). This helps how?

Having said that, this is not a new story at all. Everyone should rent Robert Greenwald’s doc, “Iraq for Sale” about KBR and Haliburton, which came out several years ago already. I broke down in tears at one point. And if we think our troops have it bad (and they do), having to steal water and suffer from dysentery because of filthy well-water, imagine what the Iraqis are going through. In 2003 we deliberately targeted for bombing generators and other infrastructure that provided power for sewage treatment plants, hospitals, etc. Our disregard for the lives of Iraqis in this neo-imperial adventure based on greed, hegemony and total contempt for basic human decency was bound to spread to our own troops.

If you’re interested in the anysoldier.com website here are some use hints:

First thing, click on Where to Send (http://anysoldier.com/WhereToSend/)

Choose from a soldier request (for instance, go through your books, magazines, CDs or DVDS, to see what might be wanted, and you might want to get rid of.)

The post office stocks flat rate Priority boxes at $10.95 postage per box, the preferred side for sending to APO overseas addresses. You can fit a lot into that box.

For other requests, I head to the 99 cent store first, where usually I’m able to find most of whatever is being requested.

What a fucking disgrace.  How the hell did the United States Defense Department collapse to such a level that we can’t even keep our soldiers’ thirst quenched?  It really seems like when you plan to keep personnel in Iraq, in the summer, you need to make sure you have the fucking water situation under control.
Billingham on 05/13 at 04:15 PM

“When you outsource to the lowest bidder, WTF do you expect?”  That from a guntotin’ NRA card carrying God ferain’, good ol’ boy, Desert Storm, ex military friend of mine.

Our troll has surely completely failed the stick test in this thread.

Seeker said:
What’s weird about this, from a meta level, is that the whole “civilian contractor” notion goes against the notion of “do what you do best”.  Ever since ww2 it has been pretty much accurate conventional wisdom that nobody kept their troops supplied as well as the Americans.  Their ability to move massive amounts of supplies from warehouse A in Wherever, USA to The Soldiers’ Hands has always been the subject of admiration, nay, awe from astonished allies and enemies.

But, but… what about all that Klinger and Radar had to do to get supplies on M*A*S*H?  Yeah, I know its just a TV show, but per my FIL, KW vet, it wouldn’t be funny if it didn’t have a basis in reality.

What a fucking disgrace.  How the hell did the United States Defense Department collapse to such a level that we can’t even keep our soldiers’ thirst quenched?

This question should be rephrased to start with “Why did they…” or “Why didn’t they…”.  Because, sure as hell, 90% of the answers to questions starting in that fashion boil down to “money”.

Oh, and looky here:

The company’s contracts in Iraq are expected to have generated more than $13 billion in revenue by the time they start to expire in 2006, but most offer low margins — less than 2% on average in 2003 and just 1.4% this year for the logistics work[citation needed] making these contracts less profitable than Halliburton’s core energy business. The contracts in Iraq will be more profitable after the US Army reimburses them for costs that were originally investigated as potentially inflated.[citation needed] Meanwhile, KBR reconstruction contracts in Iraq ‘tracked’ by the US Department of Defense were shown to include as much as 55% of total project costs as overhead.[30]

KBR has contracts in Iraq worth up to $18 billion, including a single no-bid contract known as “Restore Iraqi Oil” (RIO) which has an estimated worth of $7 billion.[citation needed]

An audit of KBR by the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) found $108 million in “questioned costs” and, as of mid-March 2005, said they still had “major” unresolved issues with Halliburton.[citation needed]

So you have contracts involving large amounts of money, small margins, and difficulties in supervision or auditing.  You couldn’t ask for a more obvious reason to shave a few points here and there, maybe only make 80% of the deliveries and charge for 100%...

When DCAA discovers errors, ,then the contracts are not supposed to be paid.  Cheney made sure the contracts were paid in full before audits.

Again, special place in hell.  May the Hague hurry his trip there.

Another cash cow for KBR is providing the food service for our soldiers. I believe KBR charged the DoD about $27 per meal served. Now that seems high for your basic chow hall fare but it is a war zone so I’ll grudgingly accept paying Ritz prices for what is essentially truck-stop cuisine. Here’s the key to KBR’s scam. The number of $27 meals charged back to the DoD is determined by counting the number of disposable meal containers remaining after the chow hall closes. What makes this counting method a cash cow for KBR is that many soldiers prefer to enjoy their meals in the familiar surroundings of their barracks. To keep insects and sand out of their food, soldiers their food with additional disposable meal container. That $27 meal now costs the DoD $57.

Balad Airbase is home to about 25,000 soldiers and airmen. Assuming 50% get their meals to go for each of the three daily meals served, KBR’s Balad chow hall alone is generating just over $1 Million per day in pure profit. Corruption at this scale explains why Chaney net worth in now approaching $100 Million. (As of mid-May 2005 it was reported that US forces occupied a total of 106 bases. http://www.globalsecurity.org)

KBR awarded contracts to several subcontractors to provide dining facility services at more than 60 locations throughout Iraq and Kuwait….[S]ubcontractors generally charge for meals at a negotiated fixed meal cost (per person) using various headcount schemes including estimated camp population, estimated numbers from the subcontract statement of work and billeting records to set the number of billed meals. These billed headcount numbers exceed the actual meals served by at least 19 percent according to KBR’s own studies and could be as high as 36 percent based on on-going DCAA analysis. Statement of Mr. William H. Reed, Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency House Committee on Government Reform 9 June 2004 http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/DCAA_testimony.pdf

It’s like they’re living in the past. It’s all Bush’s fault.

Yes, let’s all completely ignore the past so we can blame everything on the guy we don’t like.  You betcha!  *wink, wink*

I’m sure Franklin won’t understand that because I doubt he cared enough to watch the vice-presidential debate.

This is another shining of privatization of of something that isn’t in a free market.  Is it any surprise that so few people want to join the military that they have had to lower their recruitment standards?  I would think that if someone is risking their life for a country, the least you can do is provide them with enough water.  I doubt that dehydrated soldiers would be as effective in combat.  Whenever I see these “Support The Troops” collection boxes, I always wondered why they have to rely on donations from the public just to have soap and toothbrushes.  Basic necessities should be a given.

We sent my sister tuna fish in packets, cereal, ramen, and various other non-perishable food stuffs because when she was at Balad, she absotively refused to eat in “Cheney’s Restaurant,” as she referred to it.

At what point does this become President Obama’s responsibility?  On what date will my friends on the left consider it fair to say that remaining Bush Administration responsibility has ended, and it’s all the responsibility of the current administration?  Would 20 July 2009—six months after Mr Obama took office—be acceptable?

Gracchus - that was a really shitty comment about Iraq being a pesthole. Arab-bashing isn’t going to bring the troops home any sooner. I am disturbed by the amount of bigotry against Arabs and Muslims I see on progressive blogs (usually in the comments).

As you’ll see below, I’m not singling out Arabs and Muslims. We are discussing Iraq in this thread. And it’s not a question of helping, it’s a question of making a fact-based observation about one reason Obama should pull American troops out of there.

Gracchus, Iraq is not a tribal pesthole. It’s green and beautiful and full of amazing, historic architecture, and the people are lovely, friendly, and kind. So many of them wanted us to succeed and were so happy at the beginning. Women had better rights under Saddam than they did under us, thanks to Rummie’s ludicrous insistence on a lean fighting force that could win a war, but not a peace.

Please do not insult Iraq based on the actions of a minority of insurgents. You can thank Rummie for the insurgents, too. He dissolved the Army and the Ba’ath Party. If he had not, there would be jobs and men would be able to support their families, which is paramount to male dignity in the Middle East.

I call all sorts of places pestholes—pretty much any place where the culture is dominated by tribalism/clans and priests (and often affiliated militias/insurgent groups/gangs). That includes many small towns and urban neighbourhoods in North America.

Look, I’m aware of my privilege and good fortune, but I’m not a cultural relativist. I’m an adherent of liberalism and Enlightenment ideals, and I’m not shy about saying so. As far as I’m concerned, KSA and Congo are also tribal/religious pestholes, despite differences in GDP and greenery. Unfortunately, there are fewer places than not on the globe where that isn’t the norm—the names of the tribes and the religions change, but the suffering (usually of women, children, and the elderly) is depressingly the same.

In the particular case of Iraq, for example, it does us no good to pretend that Saddam was a world champion of women’s rights, or that the Ba’ath Party and Republican Guard were anything more than Saddam’s personal toadies and thugs. If citizens’ jobs and dignity are dependent on the army and the one-and-only political party, I’m sorry but their country is in major trouble. Prince Bush’s blood-soaked misadventure made things less stable, but Saddam’s version of stability (which included enabling Sunni priests and pandering to religious bigotry) was also definitely of the pesthole variety.

It’s stating the obvious that the vast majority of Mesopotamia’s residents are lovely, friendly, hoospitable individuals, like the majority of human beings everywhere. Unfortunately, outside certain neighbourhoods of Baghdad and Basra they’re saddled with feudal clan warlords (of which Saddam was one) and religious fantasists (e.g. Mookie Sadr) as their “leaders”—the kind of violent thugs who settle their disputes not with press and pundits and polls, but with assasinations and pogroms and prison cellars. That sort of thing tends to spoil the beautiful scenery, the historic architecture, and the mood of the people, although it more than makes up for it in poverty, repression, and needless death (see also the Swat Valley).

That’s not to dismiss the significant additional and exacerbating effects of colonialism, but it was a favourite tactic of the various empires exploiting long-existing tribal and sectarian divisions (see also Rummy disbanding the Ba’ath infrastucture). And unlike the “kinder, gentler” imperialists of the PNAC fantasist neoCon faction, I don’t think you can force Western-style democracy down any given culture’s throat—we have enough trouble at home convincing the 25% Know-Nothing voter base that it’s a good thing. Beyond the real, unspoken reason behind Iraq II (oil), our troops had as much business there as the British did 90 years before: none.

[The good news is, with the wide reach of the wireless Internet and its associated edge devices and services (e.g. microfinance and educational apps), we’re seeing the very beginning of the first new traction in centuries against both the priests and the warlords even in remote areas of the world. But the priests and warlords have a way of persisting.]

Apologies for the de-rail.

At what point does this become President Obama’s responsibility?

The occupation of Iraq became his responsibility on 20 January, 2009—unless you’re also confused about the distinction between “responsibility” and “blame” (it wouldn’t be surprising). The blame for invading and occupying Iraq, and the subsequent fall-out (including the hiring of shoddy contractors like KBR) is now and forever the Bush-Cheney administration’s.

As for Obama taking responsibility, he’s not pulling out the troops as quickly as I’d like, but I’m enough of a grown-up to understand that a President isn’t some sort of wizard who waves his wand to instantly put things right after his predecessor spent 8 years screwing up.

That’s a good question and one that will be difficult for Obama supporters to answer because it’s asking for something objective and not some ‘feel good’ emotion type question.

Strangely, Dana’s question wasn’t difficult at all to answer. Perhaps that’s because my criteria for “difficult” is different than yours (e.g. I find advanced calculus difficult, you find long division difficult).

As to “racism,” I’d say a neutral definition would be something along the lines of “discriminating against a group of people for no other reason than the physical characteristics and unfair stereotypes associated with that group’s racial identity.” That’s pretty much your M.O., right?

Liberals and progressives don’t generally give specific figures regarding oppressive taxation because: A) we’re not the ones claiming that’s the case; and B) unlike you we understand that the fact that there are many forms of taxation (some not even called taxes), and that this fact is only a sampling of the issue’s complexity—a complexity that makes economists far smarter than me (i.e. infinitely smarter than you) demur when asked.

When is KBR’s current contract up? Obviously it would be nice to get action before then, but a company that’s been given 6 years of presidential authorization to loot and non-perform can’t be expected to suddenly turn around and behave properly, especially given the odds that it won’t have the business much longer.

Gracchus, I’m not engaging in cultural relativism. The fact is, before us, women had the choice to veil or not veil. Now they don’t. They could work and walk around. Now they can’t. I’m not pretending Saddam Hussein was a great guy; I’m simply pointing out the truth. You’re putting words in my mouth and I don’t appreciate it. Our invasion was a fucking disaster for that country. If you don’t acknowledge that, you’re being dishonest.

    Ba’ath Party membership was de rigeur for everyone; people joined just so they could get jobs and survive. The Army gave jobs. Stop watching Fox News, for God’s sake.

  We unleashed the radical priests and private armies; as I said, Rummie wanted a lean fighting force, but 150,000 troops can’t maintain the peace.  We gave the jobs to KBR and they fucked up the reconstruction to boot. We invaded a country ruled by a strongman whom people were united in hating. We took him out and they turned on one another. Yugoslavia, anyone? We did not provide either adequate security or leadership, and people stepped in to seize power. Oh, yeah, and let’s not talk about how so many US troops were not taught anything about the culture and did insult people every day.

I don’t know where you’re getting your shit from, but pick a better source.

And if you don’t want to talk about this seriously, fuck off.

And Gracchus, it is entirely possible to think Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator, that the US invasion was a disaster, and that Iraq is nevertheless not a “tribal pesthole”, whatever the hell that means.

The dismissal of conflicts on the basis that they are “tribal” is one of the worst kinds of ignorant Othering.  It’s one of the reasons why Bill Clinton was so reluctant to get NATO involved in Yugoslavia and the UN in Rwanda.  He was told “it’s all tribal” and irrational, impossible to understand and therefore unsolveable.  None of those things were true, and the result was the international facilitation of crimes against humanity and genocide.

“It’s tribal” is just code for “I can’t be bothered to work it out”.  Do you not think an outsider could look at the factions of politics and culture in the US and think “how very tribal”? If that means complicated, human, and messy, the yes.  But to dismiss a whole country/region on that basis is just ignorant bullshit.

On what date will my friends on the left consider it fair to say that remaining Bush Administration responsibility has ended, and it’s all the responsibility of the current administration?  Would 20 July 2009—six months after Mr Obama took office—be acceptable?

How about September 12, 2009?  After all, according to you guys, George W. Bush wasn’t responsible for anything that happened up until that date in 2001, so it would be dishonest of you to insist that the new guy should be deemed responsible for everything that happens three months before Bush was deemed responsible for anything.

Riverbend has more details on the differences between living in Baghdad pre- and post- “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.

Strangely, Dana’s question wasn’t difficult at all to answer.

It’s wasn’t difficult to answer because it was disingenuous.  The wingnuts have been pushing the “Obama Recession” and “Obama Crash” since last October when it became obvious McCain was tanking.  These are the same idiots who are still crediting Reagan with every economic uptick of the last 20 years.  And blaming liberals for making Iraq go pear-shaped by emitting Magic Liberal Negativity Rays.

Now they want to pretend a.) the last 8 years didn’t happen, b.) okay they happened but it wasn’t the GOP’s fault, c.) okay it was the GOP, but the fault of interloping Republicans who weren’t Real Conservatives(tm).

It’s hard work cleaning up after an elephant.

Many have also reportedly suffered from dysentery because they were forced to drink untreated water from Iraqi wells.

Ack. Doesn’t this also imply that they’re not being issued with either individual or unit-level water purification systems? Me, I don’t go out for a hike without a water treatment system of some kind (actually, two separate systems usually) - it’s basic survival gear.

In the particular case of Iraq, for example, it does us no good to pretend that Saddam was a world champion of women’s rights,

Here’s the deal:  in the “Constitution” of Iraq before the invasion, women had more rights granted to them than in the “Constitution” W let them rewrite.

Whether or not the laws were always enforced is another issue.  Saddam’s sons rape rooms are another issue.

The fact remains that if the laws are enforced as written, women now have fewer rights under Iraqi civil law than they did under Saddam.  We took rights away from women.  In my name, my country removed rights from women.

Iraqi women used to have jobs, wear jeans, go out alone, drive cars, leave their heads uncovered.  Not anymore.  We removed Saddam, but let even worse people in to run the place—that includes Halliburton et. al. 

It does no one any good to pretend that Iraq is a better place since the invasion.  We removed Saddam and then let the place go to hell.  Our soldiers were told to stand by and allow looting.  There were not enough of them to hold it together.  Rumsfeld’s strategy was a total debacle.

Crying that Saddam was evil is bullshit.  Iraqis had electricity and water 24/7 under Saddam.  As much as they hated him, we’ve turned Iraq into such a hellhole that many of them MISS Saddam.  Life was better there before.  Oppressive?  Sure, but less so than now—don’t lie about that.

The fact is, before us, women had the choice to veil or not veil. Now they don’t.

And that’s because (as you noted) the incompetent and misguided U.S. invasion allowed other tribal and religious players to gain control in the power vacuum left by the ousted tribal strongman Saddam. That’s one of the many reasons the invasion was a disaster for the people of Mesopotamia. But the U.S. didn’t create the priests and the feuding clans—they were around for hundreds of years before, and just lay somewhat dormant under Saddam’s boot heel.

We don’t seem to disagree on those facts, except perhaps for the last. And even there, I think we can agree that BushCo was criminally clumsy in its execution of an invasion and occupation that was criminal to begin with.

Ba’ath Party membership was de rigeur for everyone; people joined just so they could get jobs and survive. The Army gave jobs.

Well, I prefer multiple political party options (or none at all), none of which determine whether or not you can get a job. And I prefer that the army not be a society’s major source of jobs. I’d imagine that you do, too. So again, I’m not seeing a disagreement on facts.

It’s one of the reasons why Bill Clinton was so reluctant to get NATO involved in Yugoslavia and the UN in Rwanda.  He was told “it’s all tribal” and irrational, impossible to understand and therefore unsolveable.

After spending my years in journalism producing stories about and talking regularly with reporters on the ground in Bosnia, I generally agree with Clinton. Killing your neighbour because your version of an invisible man is slightly different from his (the usual base excuse for this sort of thing), or because 100 years ago his tribe supposedly short-changed your tribe in a livestock deal is irrational. Of course, there are rational reasons for insurgencies and tribal conflicts, too, but they generally become overshadowed by the irrational ones.

I do agree that the international community (particularly the UN, which due to its mission is understandably feckless when in comes to tribal/cultural conflicts) didn’t do enough to stop the genocides or make enough provisions for refugees, but these tribal/ethnic conflicts are situations where there are no good solutions.

“It’s tribal” is just code for “I can’t be bothered to work it out”.

No, in cases like Iraq, Bosnia, or Rwanda it’s “code” for “it’s a long-ingrained, cultural problem that bwana can’t just sweep in and fix.” If you have an easy answer to that intractable problem, there’s a prize waiting for you in Stockholm (or perhaps at the Kipling Society in London).

Do you not think an outsider could look at the factions of politics and culture in the US and think “how very tribal”?

An outside or an insider could very well think that (I certainly do). However, in the case of the U.S. they’d also note that liberal Western culture (amongst others—it’s certainly not exceptional) has found relatively peaceful ways of handling tribal conflicts and transfers of power.

Riverbend has more details on the differences between living in Baghdad pre- and post- “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.

While I enjoyed Riverbend’s writing, and appreciated the gravity of her plight, I’m also well aware that her family (by her own description) was part of Saddam’s tame urban intelligentsiya (i.e. that kind of society’s poor replacement for a widespread educated bourgeoisie). That’s not to say that her family were enthusiastic supporters of Saddam, just that she’s speaking from a certain degree of privilege.

We’re short on water now? Pull the troops out of Iraq. We’re invading Atlantis next!

::mumbleimperialismmumblewhydIhavetobeborninTexasmutter::

Here’s the deal:  in the “Constitution” of Iraq before the invasion, women had more rights granted to them than in the “Constitution” W let them rewrite.

The scare quotes are accurate in both cases. In the former, in practise, certain women (generally urban Sunnis) had more rights granted to them. Again, I’m not saying that the U.S.-imposed constitution was any better in either letter or practise, nor am I saying that the invasion and occupation was in any way a good idea.

My point is that, in these tribal conflicts, there are generally no good guys in the leadership of any side: Saddam, Chalabbi, Sadr—all authoritarian scumbags. Which is why we shouldn’t insert our own combat troops into the middle of their fights, and why Western liberals and progressives shouldn’t be downplaying the rotten nature of one particular tribe in comparison to another.

Life was better there before.  Oppressive?  Sure, but less so than now—don’t lie about that.

You’re very fair-minded, so kindly point out where I made that claim.

Look, whether there’s chaos (as there is now) or stability (as there was of a sort under Saddam), life in Iraq isn’t likely something that a feminist like yourself (for example) would voluntarily undertake.

Caren wrote:

Here’s the deal:  in the “Constitution” of Iraq before the invasion, women had more rights granted to them than in the “Constitution” W let them rewrite.

Whether or not the laws were always enforced is another issue.  Saddam’s sons rape rooms are another issue.

The fact remains that if the laws are enforced as written, women now have fewer rights under Iraqi civil law than they did under Saddam.  We took rights away from women.  In my name, my country removed rights from women.

This is like noting that, under the old Iraqi constitution, everyone had the right to vote—just like everyone had the right to vote in the old USSR, in Communist China, in the Warsaw Pact countries, etc.  Of course, voting was pretty much mandatory—there were huge turnouts—and there was only oone candidate available to choose.

You at least noticed that maybe not everyone’s constitutional rights under the Ba’ath Party were respected, but really, the idea that perhaps not everyone’s rights were enforced somehow seems rather mildly phrased when you recognized that the charming Uday Hussein had rape rooms set up.

And how do you feel about the neoCon-imposed constitution, Dana? They didn’t even bother to preserve existing women’s rights clauses. So much for “freedom on the march” you guys go on about.

At what point does this become President Obama’s responsibility?  On what date will my friends on the left consider it fair to say that remaining Bush Administration responsibility has ended, and it’s all the responsibility of the current administration? 
Dana

Perhaps on the day when all Bush Administration burrowers are expunged from all state departments and government agencies.  Perhaps on the day when Iron Clad No Bid contracts to war profiteers have expired.  Perhaps when the Republican and Blue Dog congress members end their blockading of executive appointed positions.

Or perhaps not until the final conviction of War Crimes for all Bush administration personnel has been completed.

Because then, and only then, will the responsibility be President Obama’s because he will have full accountable for his decissions, his appointments and his deligation of duties.

You at least noticed that maybe not everyone’s constitutional rights under the Ba’ath Party were respected, but really, the idea that perhaps not everyone’s rights were enforced somehow seems rather mildly phrased when you recognized that the charming Uday Hussein had rape rooms set up.

Your reliance on these sensationalized issues suggests that you do not understand, and perhaps do not want to let yourself understand, the reality of Iraq today. Iraqi womens rights are worse now than under Saddam Hussein. The fact is that Hussein was a dictator who provided a basic level of security for his citizens. The fact is that this basic level of security does not exist now, has not existed since the US invasion. Your refusal to face this reality suggests that you do not really care about the Iraqis, and only wish to maintain your personal illusions.

That is standard throughout history right up to the point of the development of railroads.

And I think, as this situ suggests, some logistical problems really are quite timeless.

cynikal:  Looks to me like you’ve just set up an equation under which it can never be President Obama’s responsibility; if something fouls up on 19 January 2013, it’ll still be George Bush’s fault.

Looks to me like you’ve just set up an equation under which it can never be President Obama’s responsibility; if something fouls up on 19 January 2013, it’ll still be George Bush’s fault.

You guys told us for 8 years that everything that happened under Bush was Bill Clinton’s fault, so why do we have to stop saying that things are George Bush’s fault before the same time period is up?  You made the rules, now you have to play the game by them.  Maybe you should have thought ahead.

Strangely, Dana’s question wasn’t difficult at all to answer. Perhaps that’s because my criteria for “difficult” is different than yours (e.g. I find advanced calculus difficult, you find long division difficult).

I suspect Franklin would find counting to 20.5 difficult without taking off his shoes and pants.

And that’s because (as you noted) the incompetent and misguided U.S. invasion allowed other tribal and religious players to gain control in the power vacuum left by the ousted tribal strongman Saddam. That’s one of the many reasons the invasion was a disaster for the people of Mesopotamia. But the U.S. didn’t create the priests and the feuding clans—they were around for hundreds of years before, and just lay somewhat dormant under Saddam’s boot heel.

Gee, if only this could have been figured out beforehand and accounted for.  If only, say, the fucking ambassador of one of your fucking major allies had given a speech warning of just this, and if only one of your fucking government departments had drawn up plans incorporating just this fucking point.

If you can’t indict Bush on war crimes, send him into downtown Baghdad without a bodyguard and letthe locals express their gratitude.

I suspect Franklin would find counting to 20.5 difficult without taking off his shoes and pants.

Oh, I am so going to steal that one.

Looks to me like you’ve just set up an equation under which it can never be President Obama’s responsibility; if something fouls up on 19 January 2013, it’ll still be George Bush’s fault.

Dana

What Mnemosyne said.

Not our fault A) Reboulicans don’t understand the definition of “responsibility” or B) the Republicans decided to play Calvin Ball and now find it’s no fun when they don’t get to make the rules or thir own rules are used against them.

And you know, after 8 years of being told, “Suck. On. This.” I’m perfectly willing to kill the Neo-fascist/Republicans by strangling them with their own rules.

You at least noticed that maybe not everyone’s constitutional rights under the Ba’ath Party were respected, but really, the idea that perhaps not everyone’s rights were enforced somehow seems rather mildly phrased when you recognized that the charming Uday Hussein had rape rooms set up.

Never claimed Saddam was a good man or enforced laws.  He did however enforce enough security that women could work outside of the home, go to college, wear jeans, drive cars, etc. 

How can you possibly justify changing a “Constitution” so that women have fewer rights?  We invaded and got rid of Saddam, right?  So now the all-better Iraq will be law-abiding, except the new laws that we fucking let them write took rights away from women.  Women would be better off under the original “Constitution”, and my country fucked that up for them.

Again, Saddam was not a good man nor was he big on enforcing rights, but look at what we’ve left them.  Women, Muslim or not, must be veiled.  They can’t wear pants.  They can’t drive cars.  The crazy sharia imams have been given the laws of the land.  Iraq was more Westernized before we invaded.  Now, even if we wave a magic wand and restore security, electricity, and water, women will still be worse off than before.

That’s fucked up.  We broke the place and we should just get the hell out.

Gracchus, I was in the South, which is not a place with big cities or a huge Sunni presence. Don’t tell me what it was like, thanks. The fact is, Bush’s idea of a womens’ rights group was The Independent Womens’ Forum a group that was formed by Ann Coulter to defend Clarence fucking Thomas for fuck’s sake. 

  You’re determined to make Iraqis look backward, ignorant, and savage. That is not the case.

    Saddam Hussein was evil. But the fact is, we lied to Iraqis for the first time during the first Gulf War. GWB told Iraqis to rebel again Hussein and they did, in fourteen of the eighteen provinces. One of those provinces was Wassit, which is huge, and occupies about one sixth of the whole country. (I don’t have a map in front of me right now.) Saddam cracked down on them because we insinuated that we’d back them. Those mass graves were in part filled by American duplicity. That is to say nothing of the thousands of Iraqis killed in this war, for which we are to blame.

Which is worse? Outright murder, or murders committed by mismanagement, hubris, and indifference?

Ask an Iraqi.

The fact is, Bush’s idea of a womens’ rights group was The Independent Womens’ Forum a group that was formed by Ann Coulter to defend Clarence fucking Thomas for fuck’s sake. 

For fuck’s sake indeed.  At the CPA, Soldiers with 20+ years of experience in reconstruction had to take orders from 22-year old Heritage Foundation interns selected for their views on abortion & capital punishment.  A 24-year old woman with a degree in finance was sent to reopen Baghdad’s entire stock exchange.  America’s best Iraq experts were kept out of the country by Cheney’s office because they were deemed insufficiently loyal to the Bush Administration.

You’re determined to make Iraqis look backward, ignorant, and savage. That is not the case.

This.  The neocon idiots who midwifed this misadventure thought that the backward Iraqis would not object to their nation being used as a conservatarian playground.  And even if they did, we’d just growl at them and they’d back down.  Turns out Iraq has one of the best-educated and heavily armed civilian populations in the middle east.  Whoops.

As Steve Gilliard often pointed out, you only needed to look at Iraqi history to see where this would go, but it’s one of many lessons lost on both our trolls and the clueless leaders they admire.

You’re determined to make Iraqis look backward, ignorant, and savage. That is not the case.

No, I’m determined to make tribal, priest-ridden cultures look backward, ignorant, and savage—because they are. And Iraqis—Shiite, Sunni, or Kurd—are unfortunately still saddled with both tribes/clans and mullahs, especially outside the cities. Except for the most educated (who gravitate toward those cities or leave) most Iraqis are resigned to that system, whether it’s localised or writ large (as with Ba’ath).

I wasn’t in Iraq, thank goodness, but I’m acquainted with a couple of Marine officers from the Southern California area who were in your neck of the Mesopotamian woods from 2003-2005. When they came home, they separately filled me in on the practicalities of dealing with the local power structures in the region—whom to seek out and contact in a new town or village, etc.

The drill they described was identical, and it certainly didn’t involve tracking down the best-educated or most progressive guy in town (and definitely no women). They both knew who ran the towns and villages around Basra, during Saddam or after—clan headmen/cronies of one sort of another. They also both knew that the only alternative to the local headman’s authority in a given town or village is the mullah’s.

That’s a system as backwards as European feudalism, and one of those Marines described it as such. The Iraqis he met who were progressive and had the support of immediate family were generally interested in finding out how to leave the country ASAP—similar to the U.S. troops. You may have wanted to stick around, but most soldiers seem anxious to return to the States and put Iraq firmly behind them.

Let’s face it, the U.S. government doesn’t send its combat troops to the world’s democratic garden spots. You folks do hard work that most of us can’t or won’t, and you do it well. But while it sometimes seems you can achieve the impossible, you really can’t. Grafting Western-style democracy onto a still-extant tribal culture going back centuries is not gonna happen, no matter how fond you are of the people who live under that culture. Not understanding that was one of the key category errors of the PNAC fantasists.

Again, completely agreed on BushCo’s perfidy and incompetence, and Rummy’s enablement of Saddam in earlier times. American combat troops were sold a bill of goods about the mission, and there are few worse things an American CinC can do than send his troops to war on the basis of a false casus belli. But as bad as the neoCon fantasist and liars were, they didn’t design the Iraqi tribal/religious system—they just exploited it, and bungled even that, because (as PiatoR notes) they wouldn’t listen to reality-based experts from the diplomatic and academic communities.

Which is worse? Outright murder, or murders committed by mismanagement, hubris, and indifference?

I stick with the proposition that murder, unencumbered by adjectives, is a bad thing in and of itself. When you’re killed by someone, for whatever reason, you’re dead, and your family mourns.

Gracchus wrote, in answer to someone else’s question:

Which is worse? Outright murder, or murders committed by mismanagement, hubris, and indifference?

I stick with the proposition that murder, unencumbered by adjectives, is a bad thing in and of itself. When you’re killed by someone, for whatever reason, you’re dead, and your family mourns.

Except that, in the case of killings due to “mismanagement, hubris, and indifference” you have much more of a chance to fix the problems which led to the killings than in the case of killings motivated simply to retain power.  The victims are no less dead, but there is a greater chance of reducing future victims.

Except that, in the case of killings due to “mismanagement, hubris, and indifference” you have much more of a chance to fix the problems which led to the killings than in the case of killings motivated simply to retain power.

Hindsight is 20-20 (unless you’re a conservative, where the vision is obscured by rose-coloured spectacles). The dead, however, remain dead.

And just to be clear, “mismanagement, hubris, and indifference” was neither the sole domain of your beloved neoCons nor Saddam.

No, I’m determined to make tribal, priest-ridden cultures look backward, ignorant, and savage—because they are.

So we should be careful not to invade Ireland because they look backward and are ignorant and savage?  After all, if we’re going to talk about “tribal, priest-ridden cultures,” Ireland fits your criteria nicely.

So we should be careful not to invade Ireland because they look backward and are ignorant and savage?  After all, if we’re going to talk about “tribal, priest-ridden cultures,” Ireland fits your criteria nicely.

Indeed—many Irish folks jokingly characterise it that way. However, Ireland also has a strong and independent and educated middle class, which means the last 20 mayors of any given Irish town aren’t “naturally” the male elders of the same bloody family, which means that a secular university education is much more highly regarded than a divinity degree, and which means that secular law is (too slowly, I’ll grant you, especially in re: reproductive choice) eclipsing Roman Catholic law. That’s why the imperialists who visit Ireland these days don’t arrive toting automatic rifles.

In fact, if Ireland hasn’t made all the progress toward a Western Enlightenment society that we’d like, it’s mainly because of earlier British colonialists who were (per usual) more concerned with greed and power than with fostering a healthy bourgeoisie and delivering Enlightenment principles unto the benighted.

Iraq, despite the presence of a small and tame urban middle class fostered by Saddam, doesn’t match Ireland in that regard. But to answer your question, we shouldn’t be invading and occupying any of these countries. Trade with them? Sure, on an equitable basis. Use “soft” power to undermine the influence tribal leaders and priests? Definitely. Make provisions for those who want to escape those societies? Definitely. But otherwise, let them develop on their own, and work out their disputes about ancient clan grudges and how to mumble to invisible entities amongst themselves.

By the way, I don’t see anyone here stating that tribal, priest-ridden cultures are good things, nor do I see anyone (except perhaps for FR and Dana) arguing that we should be invading such countries. So, beyond my pointing out the unfortunate fact that Iraq is one of those countries dominated by patriarchal tribal leaders and dour priests, I’m not seeing much real disagreement here.

anyone’s enemies will just lay down their differences and embrace your “enlightened” point of view if they just understand them better.

Or, we could try and “bomb them back into the Stone Age”, that worked so well the last time around…..........

Dark Avenger, it’s clear from his response that FR has reading comprehension problems. Don’t confuse him by adding current events into the mix.

Gracchus, do be kind.  FR was rejected from consideration for a spot on “Upper Class Twit of the Year” because “Regarding the first qualification: the applicant is not of the English upper class.  Regarding the second qualification: the applicant is overqualified.”

Okay, so when I was last in Iraq, which was in ‘06, we had plenty of water… boxes upon boxes of water from Nestle, which was awesome. And we literally set up camp by a bridge near a railroad. Now I don’t know what it’s like now, from personal experience, but my best friends came back with no complaints. Maybe it’s an army thing. Maybe the army doesn’t take care of their soldiers. I wouldn’t know, I was in the Marine Corps.

As far as people still believing the war is a failure, I’d say your wrong. Violence is down. American deaths and Iraqi civilian deaths are down, signifigantly. Plain and simple. And of course, you’re not gonna see that on any cable news channel. It’s not as bad as when the war started. My friends, who went on their third tour, said they were completely bored. Now for the infantry, in Iraq, this is rare, especially near Ramadi, which was where they were deployed and was a hot spot a few years back. If you look at places like Al-Kut, Basra, Fallujah, which I was there during Operation: Phantom Fury, they’re all under control. So stop whining, we’ll be out soon. Also, if you think Iraq was better under Sadaam, then you’re an ass.

Gracchus, do you not think, since you’re a firm believer in liberalism and the Enlightenment, that the western world has a responsibility to spread democracy, liberalism, and Enlightenment ideals to a region dominated by theocrats and monarchs? And I don’t know when your “officer friends” were last in Iraq but it’s no longer chaotic there. Now, you can get your news on Iraq from some anti-war blog or talk to someone who has been there… recently.

A friend of mine is about to go to Iraq as a civilian contractor.  The security people tell him he’ll be travelling everywhere, and I mean everywhere, by helicopter, at night whenever possible.  He’ll be surrounded by armed guards and is expected to be armed himself.  No surface travelling at all- too dangerous.  Please, tell us more about how safe and under control Iraq is right now.

Gracchus, do you not think, since you’re a firm believer in liberalism and the Enlightenment, that the western world has a responsibility to spread democracy, liberalism, and Enlightenment ideals to a region dominated by theocrats and monarchs?

Yes, the White Man’s Burden is always there, isn’t it?:

A Eurocentric analysis of the poem may conclude that Kipling presents a Eurocentric view of the world, in which non-European cultures are seen as childlike. This view proposes that white people consequently have an obligation to rule over, and encourage the cultural development of people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds until they can take their place in the world by fully adopting Western ways. The term “the white man’s burden” has been interpreted as racist, or taken as a metaphor for a condescending view of non-Western national culture and economic traditions, identified as a sense of European ascendancy which has been called “cultural imperialism”. An alternative interpretation is the philanthropic view, common in Kipling’s formative years, that the rich have a moral duty and obligation to help “the poor” “better” themselves whether the poor want the help or not.[11]

Now I didn’t say Iraq was safe. I did say it was less violent, which is progress, which is good. But don’t try to make me feel sorry for your friend who will be in a helo at night. His choice. The possibility of an RPG actually hitting a moving helo, especially at night, is pretty low.

How do you get “white man’s burden” from seeing democracy spread in the Middle East as a good thing? Sitting back and watching people opressed by their king or ayatollah seems selfish. Just because I would absolutely love to see Iraq and Afghanistan practice western democracy doesn’t mean I want “the big bad white Americans” to be in control of it. I want to see the two countries succeed. Two countries where if you had any opposition to the status quo, you’d be stoned or gassed. I think if this is successful, then Iran and other countries could follow suit. This could lead to less war, since democracies usually don’t go to war with each other. It’s just my opinion. Don’t drown me out with your rhetoric.

How do you get “white man’s burden” from seeing democracy spread in the Middle East as a good thing?

I’m all for encouraged democracy, but we have to do it with our actions and not just words, as when we give Egypt millions of dollars in taxpayer money, but hardly do anything when moderate democratic dissidents are thrown in the slammer for exercising what we would call 1st Amendment rights.

You’ve heard the one about not just talking the talk, but walking the walk, right?

Sitting back and watching people opressed by their king or ayatollah seems selfish.

Yes, let’s rescue the poor dears and make sure they get the vote, never mind that democracy flourishes best in an environment that included a strong middle class, never mind that I’d rather relieve them of the oppression of poverty, disease, corruption, etc, first, in order to build a strong middle class for said democracy.

John Quincy Adams, address on 07/04/1821:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.<u> She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.</u>

This is what you may look like to some, even though the dialog is purely fictional:

              SISKO
        Is something bothering you, Major?

              KIRA
        You don’t want to ask me that,
        Commander…

              SISKO
        Why not?

              KIRA
        Because I have a bad habit of telling
        the truth… even when people don’t
        want to hear it.

              SISKO
          (pleasant)
        Perhaps I want to hear it.

  (A beat.)  All right, fine…

              KIRA
        I don’t believe the Federation has
        any business being here.

  Sisko nods, takes a beat, then…

              SISKO
        The provisional government disagrees
        with you…

              KIRA
        The provisional government and I
        don’t agree on a lot of things…
        which is probably why they’ve sent
        me to this god-forsaken place.

          (beat)
        I have been fighting for Bajoran
        independence since I was old
        enough to pick up a phaser… 
        finally, we drive out the
        Cardassians… and what do our new
        leaders do… call up the Federation
        and invite them in…

              SISKO
        The Federation is only here to…

              KIRA AND SISKO
          (in unison)
        ... help us/you.

              KIRA
          (continuing)
        ... yes, I know.  The Cardassians
        said the same thing sixty years ago.

Just because I would absolutely love to see Iraq and Afghanistan practice western democracy doesn’t mean I want “the big bad white Americans” to be in control of it.

No, but that’s how it would be perceived, and politics is very much a question of perception as well as reality.

I want to see the two countries succeed. Two countries where if you had any opposition to the status quo, you’d be stoned or gassed

I want all countries to succeed, but it’s a bit more complicated than that.

I think if this is successful, then Iran and other countries could follow suit.

Citing Iran is interesting because they are a democracy, albiet set up differently than we’d think suitable, but here again you demonstrate that good intentions can neither replace or eliminate the need to be informed about what you’re talking about.

This could lead to less war, since democracies usually don’t go to war with each other.

Unless you count the bombing of Serbia under Clinton.  Pakistan and India are democracies, the first not so much, but they had clashes even when the leader of the former was as legitimately elected as the leader of the latter.

Don’t drown me out with your rhetoric.

Please don’t assume all I have to my comments here is excessive rhetoric.

Deal?

So when we overthrow an oppressive dictator, is that not using action rather than words? I totally agree that it’s wrong for our government to throw people in jail for excercising their first amendment right. I may not agree with a lot of the people who are jailed that are on the left and right, but it’s their right. I certainly hope you don’t assume that I’m some Republic asshole, because I’m not.

You’re right, democracies do flourish best with a strong middle class. But even if there was a strong middle class in Iraq, do you actually believe some spurt of revolution would have begun, especially with the threat of chemical weapons and a military? Why are people on the left so opposed to lifting the oppressed in other countries.

I can’t believed you quoted Star Trek. That’s all I’ll say about that.

Politics is about people, problems, and power. Simple as that. So if other countries perceived U.S. intervention as a war on Islam, then that’s their problem.

How is it more complicated than that? If you talk about a belief you have that happens to be different than the status quo believes, you’re fucked. Even if you’re practicing free speech in a free country and it conflicts with Muhammed’s teachings, the ayatollah will issue a fatwah, which was the case with Rushdie. This is why religion and government do not work. There’s nothing complicated about it. There’s no denying that the Middle East as a culture is just messed up. If you actually talk to an Iraqi-American who lived under Sadaam, they are probably pro-war. My Arabic teacher, a Kurd from Iraq, still has nothing but hate and discontent for Sadaam. It’s different to experience a dictatorship rather than reading about it or seeing it from the comfort of your own home. It’s quite easy to be anti-war, isn’t it?

What I find most interesting is that you actually believe the Islamic Republic of Iran is a democracy. The head of state is Ayatollah Khameni. He is elected by a select few clergymen for a lifetime. He is the decider in Iran. Khameni is in charge of the military. The head of government, the president, is elected but the ayatollah is the supreme leader. In order to hold the presidency, you have to be what? A practicing Shia Muslim! Awesome form of a “theocratic democracy.” Seriously, where did you get your info on Iran?

Pakistan is another Islamic Republic and India is full of corrupt officials. The bombing of Serbia was for war crimes committed by Milosevic and was headed by NATO, not just us. And I said “usually.” So, for as long as modern democracy has been around you have only two conflicts. Nice. I guess I should have clarified that to western democracies, but whatevs.

No deal. Especially when you attempt to belittle me with said rhetoric and quotes from a bad president and aliens.

So when we overthrow an oppressive dictator, is that not using action rather than words?

We didn’t invade Iraq and depose Saddam because he was an oppressive dictator, we ostensibly did so because he was a threat to America.

Do you remember the part about we can’t let the smoking gun become a mushroom cloud?

But even if there was a strong middle class in Iraq, do you actually believe some spurt of revolution would have begun, especially with the threat of chemical weapons and a military? Why are people on the left so opposed to lifting the oppressed in their countries?

We’ve lifted up the oppressed in Iraq to the point where women are under much stricter conditions than before Saddam, and the Shi’ites can now be buddy-buddies with their co-religionists in Iran, a good job all around.

So if other countries perceived U.S. intervention as a war on Islam, then that’s their problem.

No, it feeds into the hands of the Islamists,  and it’s not the other countries, it’s the people in them that whose opinion matters, not just dismissing what they perceive as “their problem”.

If you talk about a belief you have that happens to be different than the status quo believes, you’re fucked.

Yes, as in our ally Egypt, if you’re a democratic activist, as I pointed out in my previous column.

I believe this chart will illustrate that Iran is, at it’s roots a democratically organized state.

The head of state is Ayatollah Khameni. He is elected by a select few clergymen for a lifetime.

Wrong, from the Wiki on Iran:

The Assembly of Experts elects and dismisses the Supreme Leader on the basis of qualifications and popular esteem.[108] The Assembly of Experts is responsible for supervising the Supreme Leader in the performance of legal duties.

Khameni is in charge of the military.

Wrong:

Unlike many other states, the executive branch in Iran does not control the armed forces. Although the President appoints the Ministers of Intelligence and Defense, it is customary for the President to obtain explicit approval from the Supreme Leader for these two ministers before presenting them to the legislature for a vote of confidence.

If you actually talk to an Iraqi-American who lived under Sadaam, they are probably pro-war. My Arabic teacher, a Kurd from Iraq, still has nothing but hate and discontent for Sadaam.

Howbout the experience of Iraqis who are still living in Iraq and went through the war?  Why don’t you tell us about what they might have to say?  Anecdote isn’t the singular form of data, BTW.

It’s different to experience a dictatorship rather than reading about it or seeing it from the comfort of your own home. It’s quite easy to be anti-war, isn’t it?

My mother was a prisoner in a Japanese Imperial Army ‘civilian relocation center’ who saw the Japanese bury a Chinese guerrilla fighter alive.

My anti-war stance isn’t what I consider an easy one, but then whom is trying to drown out who with rhetoric?

You can take your condescending view of what I know and don’t know about living under a dictatorship and blow it out your ass sideways.

Pakistan is another Islamic Republic and India is full of corrupt officials. The bombing of Serbia was for war crimes committed by Milosevic and was headed by NATO, not just us.

<blockquote></blockquote>

Serbia was a democracy at the time and NATO was (and is) comprised of democracies, in case you haven’t noticed.

I guess I should have clarified that to western democracies, but whatevs.

Sorry, it still doesn’t make a difference.

Especially when you attempt to belittle me with said rhetoric and quotes from a bad president and aliens.

I’ll leave it up to others as to whether I’m ‘belittling’ you or whether you can’t come up with good answers for the facts and ideas I’ve brought up here.  Your evasive manner doesn’t help your case, so keep up the good work.

30

How do you get “white man’s burden” from seeing democracy spread in the Middle East as a good thing?

Do you support Hamas as the legitimate leadership of the Palestinians?

If the latter comments in this thread could be reduced to a single point, it is the argument that yes, we all support freedom and democracy, but the difference is: what are we willing to do in support of extending freedom and democracy to others?  Are you willing to make some sacrifices to try to bring freedom and democracy to places which did not have it, or are your principles of non-intervention so strong that you would prefer to let a country languish under a brutal dictatorship rather than do anything effective about it?

There were few gripes about the liberations of Grenada and Panama, because they were quickly and easily accomplished; little American blood was spilled, and little American treasure was expended.  Iraq and Afghanistan have been far more difficult, and may turn out to be failures.  Rudyard Kipling’s “white man’s burden” was fine, as long as it wasn’t too burdensome.

The Merovingian in a time of Carolingians asked:

How do you get “white man’s burden” from seeing democracy spread in the Middle East as a good thing?(whiskeytangofoxtrot)

Do you support Hamas as the legitimate leadership of the Palestinians?

I have seen very little dispute that the Palestinians freely voted for Hamas, but that does not mean that, in recognizing Hamas as the people’s choice there, we have to agree with Hamas’ goals.  Remember, Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany under what passed for democracy under the Weimar Republic.

Just time for one post before I start my weekend, so here you go, WTF ...

Gracchus, do you not think, since you’re a firm believer in liberalism and the Enlightenment, that the western world has a responsibility to spread democracy, liberalism, and Enlightenment ideals to a region dominated by theocrats and monarchs?

I made it clear above that I do not (repeat, not) think it is not the Western world’s responsibility to spread democracy, liberalism, and Enlightenment ideals to a region dominated by theocrats and monarchs via military force (italicised because there are other ways to spread our values)—especially when that PNAC fantasy is a cover pretext for other purposes (the neoCons who started this mess call that sort of fantasy the “noble lie”).

As I’m sure you’re aware, one of America’s core liberal/Enlightenment values is known as “people’s right of self-determination”—the founders never mentioned our mission to deliver that right to other nations by force of arms (quite the opposite—see G. Washington), nor did they assume that people would always choose a Western-style democracy. Even 19th-century Manifest Destiny, which drove our various wars against native Americans, was brutally honest about its goal of gaining more land for the republic.

When they engage in rebellions (a form of self-determination, as opposed to coups), tribal and priest-ridden cultures without a strong and educated organic middle class historically replace the old regime with another strongman (a monarch or dictator) or theocrats. Often in their process of self-determination, the people are limited to lousy choices—because of culture, because of outside interference, and because of other circumstances (e.g. world economy, geography, climate). It sucks, but there you have it.

So yeah, bringing democracy to Iraq’s long-standing tribal culture at gunpoint (even a liberator’s gun pointed at thugs like Saddam and Ba’ath) is “mission impossible” at the moment, and I’m afraid that even Marines have their limits. Again, I know you guys are doing your duty, and it’s very much appreciated, but you were sent to the sandbox on the basis of a false casus belli (no WMD stockpiles, no AQ camps, no yellow-cake uranium, etc.) and I’d prefer that you and your comrades were back home or working a mission with a reality-based purpose.

And I don’t know when your “officer friends” were last in Iraq but it’s no longer chaotic there.

They were both in the south, around Basra, roughly from mid-2003 to early 2006. When they left, the mullahs and tribal headmen were still running the show in the villages and towns—just as they have for centuries. And when we finally leave, I don’t expect that situation to much change—except for the fact that, on a larger scale, Iran will have a lot more influence in Iraq than before and their own theocrats will be needlessly strengthened as a result.

Are you willing to make some sacrifices to try to bring freedom and democracy to places which did not have it, or are your principles of non-intervention so strong that you would prefer to let a country languish under a brutal dictatorship rather than do anything effective about it?

As usual, Dana, your definition of “effective” is somewhat narrower and blunter than ours. Look up Maslow’s Maxim sometime.

I always find it strange that those who crow loudest about the power of open markets are also those who jump immediately to military force as the only “effective” way to promote positive change. And promotion of open markets isn’t the only be-all-and-end-all to “soft” power, just as military invasions/occupations aren’t the only be-all-and-end-all to “hard” power.

I’d love to make an extensive rebuttal, but unfortunately, I have to go to graduation. Maybe later…

And no I’m not eluding this issue. BRB.

I said evade, not elude.

WTF, you were with the Marines in Kut? Really? HOw’s Delta, by the way? Do they still have latrines there that say “KBR only”? Are the Ukes still there? I can’t remember if they pulled out yet. If they did, who got their barracks—-and their vodka?
 
More to the point,  how much actually talking to the Iraqis did you do? Did you hear about the old police chief? Did you see the old police station? Did they show you what happened to the CPA—-if it’s still there on the river bank—-once upon a time? 

  What was your MOS? And, frankly, if you think shit doesn’t show up on cable news, I got a news flash for you: Faux News runs the most bullshit. I kind of bet that’s your favorite channel. It’s the one that shows the Gracchus-approved never-ending loop about how all Muslims are terrorists.

  Gracchus: No, I’m determined to make tribal, priest-ridden cultures look backward, ignorant, and savage—because they are.

  Because a few Marines told you this.  At second hand. Uh huh. Their jobs? Funny, you know, I had the same kind of job, in contacting the locals, talking to them, and all that shit. And if you wanna compare issues between conservative American guys and liberal Muslim dudes, bring it on you bigoted fuck. You’re just Muslim-bashing now,  based on second hand information. I once had a bunch of assholes who claimed they had Ranger buddies or some such shit tell me that I couldn’t have been in combat, because the rule book says women aren’t allowed in combat. You were the dude who called Muqtada al-Sadr Mookie, weren’t you? Yeah, that’s not telling at all. It’s the tactic of some asshole who doesn’t take something seriously. You don’t take Muslims seriously and you don’t take complicated situations seriously. 
  Again: I spot you any conservative or dipshit liberal asshole who thinks Muslims are assholes, against liberal Muslim males.

Yeah. I’ve met some great Marines, but here are a few other encounters:

  *Calling Iraqis hajji in their fucking hearing;

  *Passing porn on to the guys in my team right in front of me, labeled, ‘medical supplies’ har har har; 

  *Talking about sluts and whores:

  *Criticizing their Major, who had the supreme cowardice to dive for the ground during a mortar attack, that pussy;

  *and using the word ‘pussy’ constantly to describe anybody who was cowardly, weak, etc., etc.,;

  * and this one’s my fuckin’ favorite: some Marine fetus came up behind me in the PX, about a week after this huge, suicidal battle I was in, during which we were surrounded—-all thirty of us——by about seven hundred insurgents for twenty two hours——and asked me in a loud voice that was designed to carry: “What’s the maximum effective range of that weapon?” See, har har, I’m a petite female with BCD glasses, carrying an M-16 I obviously don’t use, and I’m obviously some kind of payroll clerk or some such shit instead of an interrogator/linguist/turret gunner/convoy runner/combat lifesaver.  I looked at this little shit through my thick Army-issue glasses, as people turned around to look at who he was smirking at: “I dunno, fetus I’ve been too fucking busy using the goddamned thing to worry about the range. Why don’t you whip out your fuckin’ tape measure and figure it out yourself?” Maybe that explains why my company blazed a trail for the Marines after the Easter Uprising, from Babylon to Kut, when nobody else dared leave post for a while.

Not to say the Army is a bastion of feminist thought or anything, but my CO was the best person I’ve ever served, and I’d follow him to hell and back if he’d so much as sigh tiredly in my direction. He got a Bronze Star, and he earned it. For that matter, he tried to get me one, as well.  And not that I haven’t run into great Marines: I was chatting with a Marine in the internet cafe during downtime and we talked about history and womens’ roles and what combat does to you, and then there’s the incredibly moving article that was in Glamour about all the female Marines who were killed in Fallujah, and all the female Marines who volunteered, instantly, to take their place. When an infantry Marine Colonel weeps over the heroism of his Marines—-and they happen to be female—-then it’s a sign that people are behind the fucking times.  It takes a strong guy to appreciate strong women, and will you criticize that guy? He’s the future. You? You’re the past.

Oh, yeah? Here:

If nothing else, someone like Muqtada al-Sadr matters, seriously, because he’s a danger to the life and health of Ali Al-Sistani, who’s more moderate than Al-Sadr ever will be. Which is ironic, considering who his father was, who killed him, and what tactics the younger al-Sadr now employs. We had to clean up some of the messes Al-Sadr left behind. I will never call him Mookie, because what he did must be regarded seriously, and not laid at the feet of the very people he terrorized. Without us, without our invasion, he’d be a nobody. We made him.

  Ask somebody about the Sharia court in Najaf. Ask us what we found there, something that didn’t make the news till much, much later. Our hands are red with blood. No amount of shifting the blame can change that.

ginmar, as a Marine, and a woman, thanks, because you pretty much accurately covered probably seven out of ten male Marines in their interactions with females.  I never saw combat, never wanted to because I didn’t believe in the war, never deployed because of injuries, and was just a bandsman (and we fucking deploy, too, for everyone who thinks we just kind of play pretty music and never deal with weapons or anything else), but I respect the holy shit out of what you’re saying here.

Semper Fi, dudette.

Based on both our comments in this thread, Ginmar, our sole substantive point of disagreement boils down to whether or not a culture that considers Sistani a “moderate” is toxically tribal and priest-ridden from a Western liberal’s POV. So I’ll leave you to discuss things with WTF, who seems to agree more with your views on this issue than with mine.

Boy, aren’t you the manipulative shit? You got second hand bullshit from some dudes you know, which is bullshit, and you’re all butthurt because nobody will accept second hand crap as substantive proof.

  Get some therapy. And read a fucking book now and then, you racist piece of shit.

ginmar, naw, I wasn’t in Kut at all. I missed the invasion, unfortunately, due to my being in high school still. Like I said, I was in Fallujah in ‘04 and west of Baghdad in ‘06. I was saying that the progress and overall good things happening in Iraq is never broadcast with the mainstream media..

My MOS was 0331, machine gunner. And sorry, I dunno if you’re typing angrily or what, but Fox News is not my news channel of choice. I fucking hate that channel. They are an “unofficial” arm of the GOP. I absolutely agree with you that Fox News’ stories about Arabs or Middle Eastern Muslims being fundamentalists.

Whoever believes that women can’t be in combat are dumb. I used to work with a lady who was ex-army, and she didn’t want to go to the VA for PTSD for shit she saw in Baghdad. Now, obviously, being in the infantry limited my interaction with WM’s while I was in, however, I knew of other units who had WM’s that were in the shit. And the shit’s no joke.

I’m sorry your few interactions with Marines were unpleasant, but suck it up. You were dealing with an organization that has very few females (less than 2,000, I believe), so we’re not too sensitive to other people’s emotions. Marines aren’t the most politically correct individuals, especially in country.

We all bitch about our COs. Who doesn’t? You probably don’t know the whole story, other than that he dove on the ground in the midst of a mortar attack. Maybe he didn’t properly lead… you know, what COs are supposed to do, especially while under attack. Maybe he curled up like a “pussy?”

INTpagan, your type I don’t understand. You join the Marine Corps and you don’t believe in the war. When did you join? And did you join just for the Marine Corps Band? I understand the band has it’s place, but don’t whine. The band is the POGest of POG. The Marine Corps is a branch of the military, not a formal party.

And Gracchus… pwned.

WTF - I joined because I was, at the time, a conservative Christian who really did think that the country needed to be defended that way.  I was eighteen years old and stupid, and band was all I had ever done in my life, so it seemed to make sense to keep on doing it that way.

Then I did something that sounds like it must be an alien concept to you - I read things.  I researched things.  And I changed my mind.  I didn’t just wake up one day as a flaming liberal, you know.  My unit didn’t deploy until after my back had fucked up royally, and my mind was already changed than - it was two years in a five year first term.

I’ll take the bitching about the band from an 03, but, frankly, few other MOS’s have much business bitching whenever we do our jobs, half of what their jobs are composed of within shops contained within the unit, and then deploy and do a better job than anyone else there, while working every holiday they get off.  Band is a good job, sure, but whenever you spend half of your time listening to people in other jobs talking about how good the band has it - while you’re working twice as hard as them half the time - it gets old.

So, you joined after the invasion, and didn’t think once that the band would be called up and do what Marines are supposed to do? I assume you learned your lesson, that is to read a contract, especially to a five year tour, before you sign.

I also take it that you didn’t turn down any promotions, especially to sergeant or staff, in opposition to the war? I do know for a fact that the band gets promoted faster than any other MOS, in order to put those nice, pretty bloodstripes on your blues. Why didn’t you go UA or desert? That’s the ultimate way to oppose the war.

WTF, how on earth do you know when I joined?  I just told you when my unit deployed, which does not imply when I was in or what year it was.  I joined in 2002, and we had invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq yet.  Also, you demonstrate a marked lack of basic reading comprehension when you say that I didn’t know what I was signing up for when I signed up - I clearly stated that I believed in the whole kit and caboodle when I joined and actually grew up and did some research after that, hence changing my mind.  Perhaps actually reading my reply would assist you in gathering said information.

If you think that, as a parent, the resonsible thing for me to have done would have been to follow any of the courses of action that you suggested, you are an idiot.  I don’t think you’re an idiot, but you also seem to be incapable of conceptualizing that people might encounter circumstances that cause them to compromise their beliefs - I had two children to support.  Since I was not providing any significant support for combat operations in my capacity as a bandsman in garrison, I did not see any productive purpose to actually rebelling against the system since I had children who would have gone hungry or who might have lost their mother to the brig over it.

Well, I was assuming you joined post-invasion, but since you didn’t post any specific year, I guess I assumed wrong.

You also didn’t mention any children, so, your bad. But I stand by my previous statement. Did you not request to be honorably seperated due to you not agreeing with the war?

Also, how did this discussion go from water for the troops in Iraq to POGey bait feeling sorry for themselves?

POGey bait feeling sorry for themselves?

You’re the one we should feel sorry for, Mr Know-it all.

And why’s that?

I dunno, perhaps your arrogance(never appealing at any age), along with your idealism that Western-type democracy can be exported like McDonald franchises with a few cultural tweaks.

An obvious lack of knowing the history of the ME and our role in short-circuiting democracy when it didn’t go our way(look up Prime Minster Mossadegh of Iran) contributes as well.

30

WTF - You know what they say; assuming makes an ass out of you and me, or you and ming, or what the fuck ever.  Point is, if you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, shut your mouth.  How the hell is it my bad not to mention that I actually had obligations more pressing than keeping my barracks room clean?  You’re supposed to be such a critical thinker - think critically, and stop pulling this self-righteous bullshit, because you sound like a spoiled fucking child who has never been responsible for anyone other than himself outside of combat.  I can respect your combat experience, sure, but if you’ve never been responsible for keeping people fed, you really don’t have any room to judge someone else’s innocuous decisions that furthered that purpose.

Of course I didn’t request to be separated.  Conscientious objector status is only extended to those who do not believe in any war, where I do believe that war is, at times, a necessary evil - I just disagree with this one.  They have a fairly stringent policy in regards to discharging people on those grounds. 

In regards to me feeling sorry for myself, no, I really don’t.  I had a fairly lucky set of circumstances that kept me from having to do anything I would have regretted.  Where on earth do you get the idea that I feel sorry for myself, aside from my calling you an ass and agreeing with ginmar that a fair number of male Marines are misogynistic assholes (gasp, shock!)? 

I think these contractors should be tried for treason for their actions.

Of course, I have a lack of understanding the Middle East, even though I’ve been to Iraq (twice), Egypt, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Not only that, I’m learning the Arabic language and studying Middle Eastern policy in school and plan on studying abroad in Egypt or Qatar.

I never said we could export our type of democracy like some fucking franchise. We’ve already gone over this subject, so read the above posts. Yes, I’m aware of Operation: Ajax. Look at it this way: if we had not supported the coup d’etat, then the Islamic Revolution would never had happened. And according to you, Iran is a democracy. A theocratic democracy, right? Seriously, take a class or read a book on comparitive politics or something.

INTPagan, again, how the fuck am I supposed to know when you joined? I assumed. You never mentioned having kids, which is moot.

Yeah, I can critically think, but, if I don’t think like you, then I’m a fucktard asshole robot Marine, right? How do I sound like a spoiled child? Because I don’t feel sorry for your dilemma? And it may be true that the majority of your POG male Marines co-workers were feminazi hating assholes, but suck it the fuck up and adapt, overcome, and improvise, Devil Dog.

I have a lack of understanding the Middle East

<u>knowing the history of the ME</u>

Is what I wrote.

even though I’ve been to Iraq (twice), Egypt, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

Hey, it’s possible to travel and still not learn anything, your little petty insults aside from what they reveal about what you think comprises an argument.

Look at it this way: if we had not supported the coup d’etat, then the Islamic Revolution would never had happened.

Yes, and you don’t seem to understand how that would’ve benefitted the American interest in the long run if that had been the case.

And according to you, Iran is a democracy.

No, according to common definitions used by intelligent people, Iran is a theocratic/democratic republic, if you reference the chart in the Wiki article, it clearly demonstrates this fact.  It is not the organizational chart of a oligarchy or dictatorship.

That I don’t agree with your views doesn’t mean I think the Iranian organization the optimal one, but then perhaps you should look up the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Seriously, take a class or read a book on <u>comparitive</u> politics or something.

Hey, sounding like a frat boy telling one of his pledges to do a paper for him always makes you look like the reasonable one here.

You don’t know what I’ve read, or what I know.

Don’t drown me out with your rhetoric

Could someone please hand me a snorkle? 

Haha. This topic is going around in circles and isn’t going anywhere.

I guess I’ll go haze someone now.

WTF, my problem with you isn’t that you’re a Marine.  Clearly.  My problem is that you make assumptions and then blame other people for not preemptively refuting them, and that’s why I call you a spoiled child - the inability to conceptualize that, perhaps, circumstances are more than what they appear to be. 

Oh, and your use of the term “Feminazi” pretty clearly puts you in that class of people, too, and that has nothing to do with your enlisted status, either, considering that I know quite a few of decent Marines who aren’t misogynists, either.  I never asked you to feel sorry for me since, as I said, I certainly don’t, nor did I complain about the other Marines I dealt with - I simply agreed with ginmar that, on the whole, her impression was correct.  Frankly, you’re not doing a great deal to disprove that stereotype.

Yeah, I know I’m not a misogynist. I guess using the word “feminazi” was the wrong choice. Damn, were you the type that complained to an officer when, or if, your DI yelled and cussed?

About the stereotype… meh, I don’t give a shit.

Noting that your choice of words is telling isn’t the equivalent of being offended.  It’s simply noting that your choice of words is, well, telling.

Damn, were you the type that complained to an officer when, or if, your DI yelled and cussed?

She doesn’t have to be to call out ill-informed, insult-spewing trash like you.