You lost.

Article: A Preview of Intel's Bensley Platform (Part II)
By: Bill Todd (, December 3, 2005 11:14 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Ray (a@b.c) on 12/3/05 wrote:


>Hmm. I am not an American

Ah - that may explain whyc you don't know what you're talking about: America today is not what you seem to think it is.

, and I am very pleased that the USA attacked Iraq and
>deposed Saddam.

Perhaps I'll be able to change your mind, then.

> Yes, several thousand Iraqis have died as a result

You're low by at the very least an order of magnitude: whether the number of deaths attributable to the attack is around 100,000 by now or is 'only' in the several tens of thousands is the question.

, but you do not
>take into account the cost of doing nothing.

The cost of doing nothing was negligible compared with the costs in both lives and dollars incurred of the invasion and subsequent occupation.

Averaged over three decades, Saddam
>killed at least a hundred people a day,

Ah, yes: there are lies, damn lies, and then come statistics.

The question, of course, is not how many deaths Saddam was responsible for 'averaged over three decades': the question is how many he'd have been responsible for had we not attacked, vs. how many *we* are responsible for now.

And the answer is that despite his obvious excesses during the '80s (for many of which we were enthusiastic or at least willing partners) and the deaths attributable to his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, since then he's been on a rather tight leash (with the conspicuous exception of some immediately-post-Gulf-War-I activity around Basra to which we inexplicably turned a completely blind eye) and has been responsible for nothing like the death rate that we've caused over the past nearly three years (and if you include the deaths attributable to our misguided insistance on continuing economic sanctions despite their clearly counter-productive effect during the '90s, it's even worse).

and that measure ignores rapes, torture,
>unjust imprisonment, and displacement of peoples that he objected to.

Hmmm. We seem to have continued his policies in those areas pretty well ourselves (though against different portions of the Iraqi population), so no extra credit there, I'm afraid.

I have family
>living in a dictatorship. Do not underestimate the plight of the Iraqi peoples under Saddam.

I don't have to estimate it at all: I just have to listen to the Iraqi people. Relatively few of them benefited all that much from our invasion (it's looking like women's rights in the country will suffer significantly as a result, for example), but the *real* crux is that *most* of them - including a majority of those supposedly most oppressed under Saddam - *want us out*.

>For me, it is a similar moral situation to watching a gang commit rape and murder
>in an adjoining car park. I feel obligated to do something about it, because someone
>has to provide negative feedback to preserve society, even if the negative feedback
>isn't perfect.

What a coincidence: that's the way I feel myself. The only problem is that it's my own country doing the raping and murdering these days, rather than doing at least a reasonable job of helping prevent such activity as was the case prior to our invasion.

> Iraq was a very good place to start,

No, actually: it was a lousy place to start, given the number of worse places in the world that needed attention more. And of course that highlights the fact that the reason we selected Iraq had *nothing to do with the high-minded self-sacrifice which you seem to want to attribute to us*: it had to do with our own self-interest, pure and simple.

and provides a potential solution
>for a lot of problems for the USA.

No, it has created enormous problems for us, and will continue to do so (no matter what we do now, but remaining will only make them worse).

It's a good example of inspired self-interest
>that I think will truly make the world better for millions of non-Americans.

Perhaps you should take a world-wide poll on that subject and get back to us with the result: my own impression is that you are distinctly in the minority in this sentiment.

>I was born in a war zone, and yet I consider war to be morally neutral. It is an
>imperfect tool with some very nasty costs associated with it. Like any tool, it
>is how it is used, and I firmly support the USA's use (and generally, the manner
>of its use) of this tool in this instance.

Easy for you to say. Let's see how you like it if it's turned against you next time.

>I spend up to an hour a day keeping track of what goes on in Iraq, depending on
>what information is available.

All I can say is that you've clearly been wasting your time: you understand nothing about the situation.

The invasion of Iraq has been a fantastic success,
>by any realistic measure: number of combat fatalities, objectives achieved, civilian fatalities, regional politics.
>I supported it expecting it to be far messier and way slower,

Ah, that helps explain things: it's difficult to admit such a gross error in judgment after the fact, and the natural (though hardly admirable) human tendency is to keep seeking justifications instead.

so I am pleased at
>the progress shown. 2000 combat fatalities for invading a country with a good-sized standing army? Fantastic.

I'm beginning to suspect that you're not exactly neutral about war after all: you seem inspired by it.

We had zero fatalities while bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so you must have been even more impressed with those operations. Of course, that ignores the issue of whether they (especially the second) were actually *necessary*, but - hey, what the hell, they were still 'fantastic', I guess.

>There are many things the USA has done that I object to (though usually the CIA
>or State Department were mostly responsible), but this isn't one of them.

And it doesn't sound as if you'll be educable in this area until it has worked its way through to the bitter end - and quite possibly not even then (there are plenty of people still in denial about Vietnam, for example).

>I have seen some pretty awful places, and I wish Americans would realise just how
>wonderful their country is,

I certainly do - save, that is, for its current direction.

> and how much of a force for good it is in the world.

You sound like someone whose ideas in this area were formed in the 1040s - 1950s and never updated. Not that we haven't done *some* good since then, but the general trend has been decidedly downward, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union all bets suddenly were off (though Clinton wasn't all that interested in exploiting the new-found freedom of action nearly as much as Bush has been, thank God).

>There aren't very many places that compare.

I certainly hope not: one aggressive superpower is already one too many.

>I just wish Americans (and even more, Europeans) wouldn't be so quick to give foreign
>aid to third world countries - I have direct experience with just how many people
>that kills in the long term.

Why, that's amazing: that's exactly how neo-conservatives feel about social programs right here at home. You'd fit right in, at least in their circles.

The war in Iraq is chicken feed next to the number
>of people that die in kleptocracies that only exist because foreign aid makes them

Gee, and here you were suggesting that Iraq was such "a very good place to start", even though you were apparently already aware of far better ones. But consistency is often the first thing to go with an ideologue.

or farmers that starve because donated food destroyed their markets. Maybe
>I should make some "No Foreign Aid!" bumper stickers.

Swastikas might make them even better!

>Oh, and as someone who has been on the other end of the stick, I have no respect
>for the UN whatsoever. It is the largest, most corrupt cesspit produced in the history
>of man, run by the scions of despots with no auditing done whatsoever.

And yet it managed to ride herd on Iraq for well over a decade, creating general conditions decidedly preferable (both to Iraqis and to the rest of the world) to those which have obtained since we invaded and likely to those which will follow our departure.

Furthermore, were you a bit more conversant with the current state of American national politics you'd realize that however bad the U.N. may be, it has some real competition for being the bottom of the barrel.

>the usual evil political taint of the UN hasn't destroyed the impartialness of the
>Hague (and assuming said impartialness ever existed), I suspect Bush and friends
>would have little to worry about. Certainly, I can think of a few hundred people the Hague should deal with first.

Funny that you can see the propriety of dealing with others first here because they're even worse, but could not in the case of dealing with other even worse countries before dealing with Iraq (if indeed dealing with the world's problems had been the real goal, which of course it was not). But I'll observe once again that consistency is hardly a conspicuous strength when ideology takes over.

I, of course, would like to see them *all* dealt with properly, and as long as it was certain that they'd get around to BushCo. eventually I wouldn't mind letting them take their natural turn.

>The only thing that could make things worse now than before Saddam was deposed,
>would be if the USA left.

The Iraqis don't seem to think so: do you believe that you're in a better position to decide than they are?

> You may argue that the invasion was a bad idea.

No: it was nothing like just 'a bad idea'. The invasion was illegal under international law (and hence under U.S. law as well, since the ratified treaty which made it illegal is by Constitutional definition part of U.S. law), justified by blatant and premeditated lies, and resulted in a 5-digit death toll for which its perpetrators should be held fully accountable.

>leaving too soon would be a calamity.

Just not as big a one as remaining even longer would be.

Iraq needs to be another Germany or Japan
>(for neither of which I am aware of an "exit strategy"), or even another South Korea, not another Vietnam.

Iraq already *is* another Vietnam, or perhaps even closer to another Russian-occupied Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Iraqi resistance doesn't have the benefit of superpower support that the Afghanis had, but on the flip side it has a world-wide grassroots support base that seems likely to be willing to take the battle to us all over the world (including here at home) the longer we remain over there.

The question is not if we'll declare "Mission accomplished!" (again) and leave with our tail between our legs - it's only when.

>Nuke D.C. if you want, but make sure your new governent doesn't leave Iraq too
>soon, because then you will be responsible for the deaths of millions over several decades.

We'll be largely responsible for whatever happens regardless. Our responsibility now is to avoid making things even worse, and the best way to meet that responsibility (not that I'm at all confident we will try to) is to remove our provocative presence from a country which does not want us there and do our best from the outside to help fix what we have broken.

>In short, I see nothing self evidently moral about your posture, nor do I find it particularly well thought out.

Another area in which we may well just have to agree to disagree.

>Oh, and I don't think the word "fascist" means what you think it means.

Dear me: you aren't catching the Dean disease of presuming to devine what others are thinking, are you?

Let's see: my (admittedly American) dictionary defines fasism as "a system of government characterized by a rigid one-party dictatorship" (we're certainly getting there, but again you can't be expected to be as familiar with our situation as I am), "forcible suppression of opposition" (perhaps you haven't heard about things like our 'free speech zones' outside of which speech isn't as free as it used to be, and the restriction of attendance at Bush speeches - in public places theoretically open to the public - to Bush supporters), "private economic enterprise under centralized government control" (well, it's not entirely clear who's controlling whom here, but the increasingly incestuous partnership is increasingly blatant), "belligerent nationalism" ("If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists", "freedom fries", vigorous denigration of the U.N. - though you seem to think that's just fine - and long-standing treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, described as being 'quaint'), "racism" (hey, they're only ragheads, after all), "and militarism" (another aspect of fascism which appears to sit well with you).

Aside from the not-necessarily-fascistic-per-se parallels with Nazi Germany in the 1930s (capitalizing upon 9/11 to drastically curtail civil liberties just as the Nazis capitalized upon the Reichstag fire comes particularly to mind as a tactic), there are a raft of more general characteristics of the fascist states of that era that should seem eerily familiar. Rather than enumerate them myself, I'll direct you to a well-done (though hardly 'neutral') Web presentation that hits at least the high points (requires Flash):


- bill
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineDavid Kanter2005/11/29 01:45 AM
  Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineTemp2005/11/29 06:25 AM
    Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineDavid Kanter2005/11/29 11:55 AM
      Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineTemp2005/11/29 02:29 PM
        Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) Onlinerwessel2005/11/29 02:53 PM
    Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineDean Kent2005/11/29 12:01 PM
      Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineWilliam Campbell2005/11/29 12:48 PM
        Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineDavid Kanter2005/11/29 01:37 PM
          Well said! (NT)savantu2005/11/29 01:44 PM
          Peer reviewWilliam Campbell2005/11/29 04:12 PM
            To clarify intentWilliam Campbell2005/11/29 04:19 PM
            Peer reviewDavid Kanter2005/11/29 04:21 PM
              Peer reviewWilliam Campbell2005/11/29 06:13 PM
                Peer reviewnick2005/11/29 11:09 PM
                  Peer reviewWilliam Campbell2005/11/30 12:39 AM
                    Peer reviewDavid Kanter2005/11/30 01:21 AM
                Peer reviewDavid Kanter2005/11/29 11:25 PM
                  Yes please (NT)William Campbell2005/11/30 12:28 AM
                    Yes please (NT)David Kanter2005/11/30 06:19 PM
                      Thank youWilliam Campbell2005/11/30 08:51 PM
                        Thank youDavid Kanter2005/11/30 10:29 PM
            Peer reviewDean Kent2005/11/29 07:12 PM
              Peer reviewWilliam Campbell2005/11/29 07:50 PM
                Peer reviewDean Kent2005/11/30 05:16 AM
                  Peer reviewWilliam Campbell2005/11/30 08:49 PM
                    Peer reviewTemp2005/12/01 03:02 AM
                      Peer reviewWilliam Campbell2005/12/01 04:54 AM
                        Peer reviewTemp2005/12/01 05:11 AM
                  Peer reviewTemp2005/12/01 03:03 AM
                    Peer reviewDean Kent2005/12/01 07:55 AM
                      Peer reviewBill Todd2005/12/01 08:26 PM
                        Peer reviewDavid Kanter2005/12/01 09:52 PM
                          Peer reviewBill Todd2005/12/01 10:14 PM
                            Peer reviewDavid Kanter2005/12/01 11:04 PM
                              Peer reviewBill Todd2005/12/02 12:13 AM
                            Peer reviewDean Kent2005/12/02 07:02 AM
                              You lost this one.Ray2005/12/02 11:54 AM
                                You lost.tecate2005/12/02 02:55 PM
                                  I second that (NT)savantu2005/12/02 03:22 PM
                                  I wasn't in the game.Ray2005/12/02 04:19 PM
                                    I wasn't in the game.Dean Kent2005/12/02 10:20 PM
                                  You lost.Bill Todd2005/12/02 05:28 PM
                                    You lost.Anonymous2005/12/02 08:27 PM
                                      You lost.Bill Todd2005/12/02 08:56 PM
                                        You lost.Dean Kent2005/12/02 10:37 PM
                                          You lost.Bill Todd2005/12/03 12:08 AM
                                            All about the contextDavid Kanter2005/12/03 02:27 PM
                                              All about the contextBill Todd2005/12/03 02:51 PM
                                                All about the contextDavid Kanter2005/12/03 04:29 PM
                                    You lost.Ray2005/12/02 09:15 PM
                                      You lost.Bill Todd2005/12/02 10:00 PM
                                        You lost.Ray2005/12/02 11:09 PM
                                        You lost.anonymous2005/12/03 02:42 AM
                                          You lost.Bill Todd2005/12/03 02:45 PM
                                            Well...David Kanter2005/12/03 03:51 PM
                                            You lost.Ray2005/12/03 05:54 PM
                                              Bill is a self loathing AmericanNIKOLAS2005/12/03 06:25 PM
                                                Bill is a self loathing AmericanBill Todd2005/12/03 09:40 PM
                                                  Bill is a self loathing AmericanBill Todd2005/12/03 09:48 PM
                                                Bill is a self loathing AmericanDavid Kanter2005/12/03 09:48 PM
                                                  Bill is a self loathing AmericanBill Todd2005/12/03 11:17 PM
                                                    Bill is a self loathing AmericanDavid Kanter2005/12/04 12:37 AM
                                                      Bill is a self loathing AmericanBill Todd2005/12/04 01:19 AM
                                                        This whole thread is a symptom...Dean Kent2005/12/04 09:43 AM
                                                          This whole thread is a symptom...tecate2005/12/04 01:17 PM
                                                            This whole thread is a symptom...mas2005/12/04 02:02 PM
                                                              This whole thread is a symptom...tecate2005/12/05 06:21 AM
                                                          This whole thread is a symptom...tecate2005/12/04 01:18 PM
                                                          ...Temp2005/12/04 03:38 PM
                                                            ...Dean Kent2005/12/04 05:25 PM
                                                              Once more, alasTemp2005/12/05 02:23 AM
                                                                Once more, alasDean Kent2005/12/05 08:23 AM
                                                                  ByeTemp2005/12/05 10:47 AM
                                                                  Once more, alasBill Todd2005/12/05 10:58 AM
                                                              Sungard as a benchmarkTemp2005/12/05 03:42 AM
                                                                Sungard as a benchmarkDean Kent2005/12/05 10:06 AM
                                                                Sungard as a benchmarkDavid Kanter2005/12/05 08:08 PM
                                                                  Sungard as a benchmarkTemp2005/12/06 01:45 AM
                                                                    More info about SungardTemp2005/12/06 03:20 PM
                                                                      More info about SungardDavid Kanter2005/12/06 04:25 PM
                                                                        More info about SungardTemp2005/12/07 12:40 AM
                                                                        More info about SungardDean Kent2005/12/07 07:52 AM
                                                                      More info about SungardDean Kent2005/12/06 07:22 PM
                                                          This whole thread is a symptom...Bill Todd2005/12/04 09:31 PM
                                                            This whole thread is a symptom...Dean Kent2005/12/04 09:51 PM
                                              You lost.Bill Todd2005/12/03 11:14 PM
                                                You lost.Ray2005/12/04 01:06 AM
                                                  You lost.Bill Todd2005/12/04 01:54 AM
                                                    Enough with the politics... (NT)David Kanter2005/12/04 03:41 AM
                                            You lost.anonymous2005/12/04 04:03 AM
                                              Well Said! (NT)Anonymous2005/12/04 04:48 AM
                                              You lost.savantu2005/12/04 06:47 AM
                                              You lost.Bill Todd2005/12/04 09:39 PM
                                                You lost.anonymous2005/12/05 02:51 AM
                                You lost this one.Dean Kent2005/12/02 09:41 PM
                                  You lost this one.Leonov2005/12/03 12:55 AM
                                    You lost this one.tecate2005/12/03 05:27 AM
                                      You lost this one.Leonov2005/12/03 06:33 AM
                                        You lost this one.savantu2005/12/03 10:19 AM
                                          You lost this one.Leonov2005/12/03 12:19 PM
                                        For god sake.Anonymous2005/12/04 04:28 AM
                                          It's sadsav2005/12/04 06:43 AM
                                            It's sadmas2005/12/04 07:09 AM
                                              It's sadMichael S2005/12/04 07:33 AM
                                              PerfectNo one you'd know2005/12/04 10:52 AM
                                                Perfectmas2005/12/04 12:32 PM
                                                  PerfectDean Kent2005/12/04 12:50 PM
                                                    Perfectmas2005/12/04 01:16 PM
                                                      PerfectDean Kent2005/12/04 04:22 PM
                                                        Posts deleted, topic not open for discussionDavid Kanter2005/12/05 02:05 PM
                                                          Posts deleted, topic not open for discussionKeith Fiske2005/12/05 05:03 PM
                                              This will not be toleratedDavid Kanter2005/12/04 04:32 PM
                                          For god sake.Leonov2005/12/05 07:10 AM
                                            Back on track...Dean Kent2005/12/05 12:35 PM
                                              Back on track...Leonov2005/12/06 03:08 AM
                                  You lost this one.Temp2005/12/03 04:16 AM
                        Peer reviewDean Kent2005/12/02 06:22 AM
                          Peer reviewTemp2005/12/02 12:01 PM
      Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) Onlinean2005/11/29 01:17 PM
        Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineDavid Kanter2005/11/29 02:17 PM
          Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) Onlinean2005/11/30 07:52 AM
            Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineDavid Kanter2005/11/30 10:42 PM
        Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineDean Kent2005/11/29 04:11 PM
        Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) Onlineanonymous2005/11/29 05:38 PM
          It's calledWilliam Campbell2005/11/29 06:17 PM
      Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineTemp2005/11/29 02:41 PM
        Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineDavid Kanter2005/11/29 03:02 PM
        Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineDean Kent2005/11/29 07:41 PM
  2 small nitpicksan2005/11/29 02:03 PM
    2 small nitpicksDaniel Bizó2005/11/29 03:27 PM
      2 small nitpicksan2005/11/30 07:40 AM
        2 small nitpicksDaniel Bizó2005/11/30 11:17 AM
          2 small nitpicksan2005/11/30 12:30 PM
            2 small nitpicksDavid Kanter2005/11/30 02:32 PM
              2 small nitpicksan2005/11/30 02:49 PM
  Minor Comment about CineBenchRakesh Malik2005/11/29 02:22 PM
  Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlinePiedPiper2005/11/29 08:04 PM
    Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlinePiedPiper2005/11/29 08:08 PM
      Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineDavid Kanter2005/11/30 02:05 AM
        Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlinePiedPiper2005/11/30 07:58 PM
          Bensley Platform Preview (Part II) OnlineDavid Kanter2005/12/01 01:45 AM
  Why no 64-bit tests?PiedPiper2005/11/29 08:37 PM
    Why no 64-bit tests?David Kanter2005/11/30 02:07 AM
Reply to this Topic
Body: No Text
How do you spell avocado?