A perfect parallelism

From Sadie:

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize recipient gave a state dinner in honor of the leader of China.

The 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo, is imprisoned in China.

All conclusions are obvious.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. SADIE says

    Little to add to that discourse, Martel, other than a Jeffrey Immelt quote:

    “You’re going to have to look people in the eye and say, ‘We’ve got to shut this factory and move it to China,’ … then in the afternoon, go out in the community and connect with people.”

  2. suek says

    >>let’s not forget the Iranian-backed Sadr followers and the former Saddam-supporting Sunni militants.>>
     
    Vultures.  Mostly feeding on the carcasses.  Although they undoubtedly cooperated in creating new ones.  Al Qaeda was the inspiring force, I think.  Enemy of my enemy thing.

  3. says

    Consider how easy it was for the U.S. to destroy the Iraqi military, but how hard it was to control the population.

    It was always hard to control the population and maintain law and order. You’ve never read Machiavelli, have you. This is not a “new thing”.

  4. says

    A war would be disastrous for China.

    China doesn’t need a war to take over Taiwan. If the US backs out of it, because people like you, Zach, talking about mumbo jumbo fantasy diplomacy, Taiwan can be taken over without a fight.

  5. says

    But they’re too far away from China and too underpopulated to be able to mount the kind of pushback that somebody should give the Chinese asap.

    They’ve also destroyed the citizen’s guns, so the people now lack the spine to do anything, let alone project power into Asia.

  6. says

    suek: If all are exceptional, then none are exceptional.

    Not in a multidimensional space. That is, each country can contribute something different to the whole.

    Rome is an eternal thought in the mind of God.

    Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal.
     
    suek: No.  All men are _not_ created equal.  All men are created equal _under the law_.   Massive huge humongus difference.

    So the entire justification for American Independence was based on a faulty premise.

    Zachriel: Consider how easy it was for the U.S. to destroy the Iraqi military, but how hard it was to control the population.

    suek: It was the Al Qaeda terrorists who had the population under their domination. 

    Al Qaeda in Iraq rose up out of the occupation, not the other way around.

    suek: It wasn’t until we were able to convince the Iraqis – who had been raised all their lives with the idea that the infidel was the devil – that they could trust the Ameriqis to help them against the terrorists. 

    So it wasn’t domination by al Qaeda, but the Iraqis people who resisted. In particular, Arab Sunnis did not trust the majority Shi’ites who would come to dominate the government. Kurds, of course, had already achieved de facto separation.

    suek: Once they decided they could trust us enough to work with us, things changed.

    What changed is that the process of ethnic cleansing has been largely completed. There are about two million internally displaced refugees in Iraq with another two million or so having left the country entirely. 
     
     
    Danny Lemieux:  The huge peak in civilian deaths occurred during the Oil for Food sanctions, however, when Saddam starved his population to divert resources to himself.

    Times were far worse during to the Iran-Iraq War. And remember, the same metrics used to determine excess mortality during sanctions also show very high excess mortality in the years following the U.S. invasion. You may discount the one, but then you should discount the other.

  7. says

    Zachriel: Consider how easy it was for the U.S. to destroy the Iraqi military, but how hard it was to control the population.

    Ymarsakar: It was always hard to control the population and maintain law and order.

    Which is why American ineptness was so classically tragic (drama in which the main character is brought to ruin as a consequence of a tragic flaw). 

  8. SADIE says

    #57 – Zach
    Three questions and three straight unlinked answers, please.
     
    1. Are you an American citizen?
     
    2. Has there been any positive influence from the USA to any other part of the world?
     
    3. Premise: You were offered a job or had the opportunity to live outside of the states, What country would you choose?

  9. says

    Which is why American ineptness was so classically tragic (drama in which the main character is brought to ruin as a consequence of a tragic flaw).
    If you want to call the anti-war movement in America tragic, I can’t disagree with that. Such was indeed a ruinous result of the anti-war and Leftist alliance. Things in Iraq would have progressed faster if people were helping, rather than hindering the effort for their own arrogance and power lust.

    Part of what you term “American ineptness” is the inability of people on the Left, I include you Zach, to think outside the box of their preconceived social equality templates. Your world view, as applied to simply Pinochet’s Chile, would have destroyed Chile. And it did, almost, destroy Iraq. And it did destroy Vietnam.

  10. Charles Martel says

    3. Premise: You were offered a job or had the opportunity to live outside of the states, What country would you choose?

    I’d choose San Francisco. Incredible views and free meds if you get an STD.

  11. says

    SADIE: 1. Are you an American citizen?

    Zachriel is Jovian.

    SADIE: 2. Has there been any positive influence from the USA to any other part of the world?

    Tons. We could list all the usual, the fight against fascism, the struggle to free the slaves, Washington, Lincoln, King. The Blues and Rock ‘n’ Roll. Lightbulbs, microcomputers. Or the difference Americans make every day with their charity work. Or we might mention the many revolutionary movements influenced by Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. 

    SADIE: 3. Premise: You were offered a job or had the opportunity to live outside of the states, What country would you choose?

    Sorry, doesn’t apply.

  12. Charles Martel says

    Notice that not included in “all the usual” is the fight against communism (the liberation of Grenada, the forced implosion of the Soviet Union, the defense of Korea and Europe, the thwarting of the Sandinistas, the acceptance of tens of thousands of Cuban refugees, the protection of Taiwan), the patrolling of the world’s sea lanes against pirates and rogue states, the liberation of Kuwait, the creation of the least racist society in the West (a beacon of hope for people who live in racist countries like Cuba, Brazil, Mexico and China). 

    The “Jovian” answer just video gameboy talk.   

  13. says

    Two guesses how long it takes for Zach to think up an appropriate answer to my 59. It’s already past the first round of comments he made.
     
    The tests are over, Zach. Now we’re unto the real battlefield.

  14. suek says

    >>So the entire justification for American Independence was based on a faulty premise.>>
     
    Oh sure.  Let’s assume your interpretation.  All men are created equal.  Now…what is your justification for taking from some and giving that which you have taken to others?

  15. suek says

    >>What changed is that the process of ethnic cleansing has been largely completed.>>
     
    Ethnic cleansing.  Terrific.  Ok,  I’ll bite – which ethnic group?  Christians? yup, mostly.  Jews?  yup…them too.  So…who else is on your list?  and who was “cleansing” whom?

  16. says

    Charles Martel: Notice that not included in “all the usual” is the fight against communism

    The list clearly wasn’t meant to be complete. The U.S. was instrumental in containing Communism, and providing an alternative vision that competed successfully over the long run. 

    suek:  Now…what is your justification for taking from some and giving that which you have taken to others?

    This was answered. Governments must tax to exist. The United States is no exception. Hence, governments take money from some and give to others, whether to build roads, equip an army or keep the lights on in the White House. Please don’t pretend that taxes inherently destructive to freedom.

    suek: Ok,  I’ll bite – which ethnic group?  Christians? yup, mostly.  Jews?  yup…them too.  So…who else is on your list?  and who was “cleansing” whom?

    This was also answered. There are three primary ethnic groups in Iraq. Arab Sunni, Kurd and Shi’ite.

  17. Charles Martel says

    Z, nice evasion. In the list of good things the United States has done, the defense of the world against the Soviet Union and communism ranks at the top, yet you somehow missed it. So, the U.S. “was instrumental” in defeating Communism? Perhaps the far more accurate words you could have used but are loath to say were “the essential element.”

  18. suek says

    >>Hence, governments take money from some and give to others, whether to build roads, equip an army or keep the lights on in the White House.>>
     
    Sorry.  That doesn’t wash.  I grant the point that governments take from some in order to _function_, but that doesn’t explain _giving_ to others.  Not “paying to do some job, provide some product or service”, I mean _giving_ – as in “here ya go…we know you’re having a hard time”.  The Feds take from some who have ahd give to those who have not.  That is _not_ a _function_ of government.
     
    >>There are three primary ethnic groups in Iraq. Arab Sunni, Kurd and Shi’ite.>>
     
    There _were_ and still _are_.  So…who cleansed whom?

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply