Ya Gots It Backward

[RandomPhantom700]

Kaith, of course if you compare the numbers, the life of a US citizen is currently a helluva lot better than the life of an Iraqui citizen. But the point of the hypothetical isn't to ask whether the same scenario could happen here, it was to counter the claim that things are vastly improving, or just plain good to go, in Iraq for its citizens. Yes, the probability of that occuring in the US is low, yes it's an abstract speculation. The hypo was meant to point out the importance of such conditions, not the reality of it.

Anyway, that's it for me. You guys continue with your, um, exchange. *grabs a new bag of spectator's popcorn*

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Rp, I understand that, but the original posting is flawed, which is why I protested.

Playing RRs game here is why I asked my last round of questions. It is not enough to say 'its all aflame', one must lay out the players and their dispositions. This -can- be a fruitful exercize, if outlined and detailed correctly.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gosh, Lando, what'd I do? Identify a usually-reasonable writer's diatribe as symptomatic?

"Yes Robert, it is hypothetical, based on false numbers and inaccurate conclusions, as well as uninformed ignorant opinion.

I read your posts and found them to be little more than popularist drivel based on the 'common belief' rather than historical fact.

I could care less if we agree. It is your ignorant viewpoint based on misinformation, and an inability to stick to a topic without tangenting into areas that have little to nothing to do with the base idea that 'bugs' me. I had expected more from someone with your credentials."

Well, at least you didn't write, "disinformation."

It isn't your job--or mine--to change minds, or reform an errant soul. It's more like badminton--or if you prefer, to go after false ideology.

So, here's my view of the false ideology around which this particular discourse circulates. Your arguments ground themselves upon what seems to be hypotheticials; in fact, when examined, they reveal a certain nostalgia. One shared by Molinari himself: ah for the Days of Empire! ah for the Days of Greatness! ah for chivalry!

Embedded in that discourse (note the absence of personal pronouns? the signifier always exceeds the control of the subject) remains: a) them pointy-head intellectuals; b) the foreclosure of real historical analysis; c) a certain, over-determined, science-fictional approach to understanding the consequence of our present decisions.

I sympathize. (Here are them pronouns.) More than that, I share the blindness. Why "blindness?" Well, I'm thinking of Freud and Paul DeMan (hey! right-wingers!! you really want to tap into a leftist nightmare? Do a search on Paul De Man!!! Read Derrida's responses to the right-wing attacks!!!...no, I didn't think you'd actually want to learn anything. Figures.): it's blindness and insight.

It isn't like you not to acknowledge that turnabout is fair play....especially since, "coherence in contradiction expresses the force of a desire."

The post I cited precisely laid out its players and their dispositions. You simply didn't like the game, preferring Battleship to Parcheesi.

So again I ask: what would our country be like, if we simply multiplied by eleven?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

ok, I'll bite.

If we simply multiply by eleven, and ignore all conflicting or 'fantasy' date the answer is simple.

One hell of a huge mess, with a lotta dead folks, and absolute anarchy.
On the other hand, a crapload of mcdojo mcbozos will finally get to see if they are really any good. (probable result, bodybag stocks soar.)

:asian:

 

[RandomPhantom700]

So, here's my view of the false ideology around which this particular discourse circulates. Your arguments ground themselves upon what seems to be hypotheticials; in fact, when examined, they reveal a certain nostalgia. One shared by Molinari himself: ah for the Days of Empire! ah for the Days of Greatness! ah for chivalry!

Embedded in that discourse (note the absence of personal pronouns? the signifier always exceeds the control of the subject) remains: a) them pointy-head intellectuals; b) the foreclosure of real historical analysis; c) a certain, over-determined, science-fictional approach to understanding the consequence of our present decisions.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying here that Kaith's disagreement with you is based on a subconscious desire to justify a nostalgia for Empire?

 

[rmcrobertson]

I wouldn't say subconscious, I'd try "a good reflection of general ideology." And, I'd note that a lot of my own love for science fiction derives from the same sources.

But otherwise, yep.

 

[kenpo tiger]

So, some of the Bah-Humbug boys are at it again. Gee, I missed you guys when I went offline. (BTW, that was directly due to the lack of sane and incisive discussion in this section and I was fed up with the Bible thumpers and flag wavers.)

When you two are civil to one another it's a great match. Go for it.

Hey Random, pass the popcorn! KT

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I wouldn't say subconscious, I'd try "a good reflection of general ideology." And, I'd note that a lot of my own love for science fiction derives from the same sources.

But otherwise, yep.

Wow, what a convenient position. If anyone disagrees with you, you can just say they're being brainwashed and controlled by ideology. That way, no matter what they argue, you can just disregard it. Slightly more sophisticated version of "they've been corrupted by the Devil". Truly marvelous.

*Passes the popcorn to KT* Care for a drink?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Please read my platform in the Kaith 2004 subforum.
If that says I support "Empire Building", I've definately mis-worded something.
My position is that the US needs to stop being the "Worlds Policeman" and return to some of the ideals of the founding fathers.


Sidebar - I know not who this "Lando Molinari" might be, though I did a search on the last name and found many notables shared it, most notably Gustave de Molinari, a noted 19th century economist and social theorist , also originator of the theory of
Market Anarchism. I'm however not familiar with his works.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yah, it's "Molari," shall we discuss the "Signorelli episode," from Freud's "Psychopathology of Everyday Life," now, or wit till later?

"Empire Building," is just a rough cut of the ideological formation. As for the notion that I am pretending complete innocence in respect to the benighted, please read what I actually wrote--which included a note that I shared some of the same ideological formation.

Three slaps with a copy of Louis Althusser's "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses."

Hey! Rightist defenders of America! Ya wants to get all down with the Louis Althusser thing, given a) his association with Stalininst theory--see E.P. Thompson on the matter; b) his having cracked up. I mean, if you're going to dump on left-wing intellectuals, will ya PLEASE take advantage of the ripe opportunities for horrified critique and general hilarity we provide?

But seriously, folks, if you're going to express a nostalgia for the Good Old South and Its Knightly Heroes, you might as well brace for an occasional remark about non-synchronism in relation to dialectics--AKA hanging on to illusions of the past in advanced capitalism, in this case...

The original point of the thread, lest we forget, was to stand on its head the notion that Everything Is Going OK in Iraq, because they suffered nothing worse than happens in all American cities...

Spinach, says I.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I'd ask, but I know better...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It's a wish for what could have been, not what was. IN any event, I think you have misrepresented my points, be it intentional or not. In any event, it is moot as no one else seems to want to discuss fantasy land and extremist 'what ifs'.

Pity. I was so looking forward to discussing the progress of the Elite Canadian Kilted Yaksmen Division as they blitzkrieg through Buffalo again. I even got out my Zamboni battle manual to help things along.

Now, if ya need me, I'll be at the Ballet trying to get intoxicated enough to actually take your writer serious....is there that much beer in Canada? I wonder.

 

[rmcrobertson]

This from the guy who wrote recently, in a thread titled, "Hmm...What if? Very Scary:"

"Alternative WWII ideas:

- Germany finishes off England before turning on Russia. Europe dominated by Nazis, no place to land attack force.
- Japan attacks Russia, not US
- Normandy Landings a failure, allies driven into sea
- Italy succeeds in conquering northern Africa.
- US Isolation keeps it neutral until too late (Germany gets the bomb first)
- Czar was never toppled, Russian Empire plays crucial role.

and, my favorite:
Aliens invade in 1943 causing a 3 way dance as invaders fight both axis and allies, who fight each other. (Book series by Harry Turtledove)"


And who is, as well, presently carrying on a "What-if I ran for President," thread.

I guess it's all a matter of whether or not we approve of the other guy's point that determines whether or not we get to whip out the hypotheticals, eh?

Pity. I was so looking forward to discussing what would happen if the knightly Robert E. Lee, the courageous George Armstrong Custer, and the brilliant if eccentric Adolf Hitler were to take on the aliens from, "The High Crusade," and/or "Footfall."

The point of the hypothetical I cited was that if what's going on in Iraq were taking place in this country, we'd believe (to quote Heinlein) that we were in "The Last Days of the Sweet Land of Liberty." So, we might want to be a little cautious about Bushian optimism.

So...what's the point of the other, stamped-as-legitimate, hypotheticals?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Alternative WW2 ideas were a reply to a question. I was stating what others had already hypothesized.

Thank you for finally getting to your point on why you suggested this thread. The initial question is not what I questioned. I questioned his 'what ifs. That is why I asked for more information. I can debate "What if the South won?" because there is an extensive body of work on the subject, which includes the Southern Confederacy's own plans for the future. I can debate "Would it have made a difference if Gettysburg had been a Southern victory?" because, again, there is extensive information to base it on. I can debate "What if the US hadn't invaded Iraq?" because there is extensive data on the conditions upto the invasion that we can use to extrapolate possibilities.

Your writer however just says "What If the US was in flames?".

I ask you "What if Iraq had invaded the US?"
What if Mexico, Cuba and Canada all allowed themselves to be a conduit for fanatics to flow into the country further destabilizing it?
What if white supremacists took the opportunity to declare themselves independent?

The difference, and what -I- am looking for to examine such things is more data to build on. Asking "What if?" allows a great deal of lattitude for thought. Asking "What if the Martians invade?" is all well and good. But where? Defensive tactics are going to be much different depending on if they land in the US midwest, or the North Pole.
More data, and then we can look at the 'what ifs'.

As to my little experiment...its simple.
I'm curious. Come play Robert. It'll be, interesting.
I'm 34 now. You have to be 35 to run for President.
I'll be 38 in 2008.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, if you find debating what happens if the Martians invade--providing, of course, one provides exact specifications for where they land, blueprints of the heat-rays employed, and no doubt a pre-game roll of the die to assign charisma points--more significant and intellectually rigorous, what can I possibly say?

As I mentioned, I demand an account of your campaign finances. I also demand full disclosure of your position on Quebec.

But anything further on how decapitations in Iraq are--if memory serves--"no big deal?"

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Well, if you find debating what happens if the Martians invade--providing, of course, one provides exact specifications for where they land, blueprints of the heat-rays employed, and no doubt a pre-game roll of the die to assign charisma points--more significant and intellectually rigorous, what can I possibly say?

Actually, since superior technology has always been the whole alien schtick, I think Wisdom and Intelligence would be the abilities to concentrate on more than Charisma.

While we're on the subject of pointless debates and all, I figured I'd contribute what I could.....

:boing2:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Quebec is free to leave Canada. My position is, they can join France.
Odds of decapitation in Iraq (if 1 per day, only target is non-military foriegner, 30,000 population to select from) : 1.21% chance (1:82)
Chance of dying in a terrorist attack while visiting a foreign country: 1 in 650,000
Chance of dying from heart disease: 1 in 3
Dying by sharp object : 1:1,874
Dying by firearm : 1:325
Dying by other means (violent) : 1:880

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm


Odds from http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm and

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It is pretty pointless isn't it? I do wish Robert would present that background data and stop tangenting into the other while interesting, but in the scope of things meaningless sidelines, but, it seems that's normal for him.

He can't debate me on facts, so he tries misdirection, some obscure references and some personal sniping about my hair. It's a moot point, but I sometimes wonder if I were to take a poll on who wins these little exchanged who the score would fall.

Robert cited a source. My question here is, what makes this particular source qualified to make not the question (for it is a valid question) but the conclusions that he did make. We know he is a "History professor", but that's no big deal. Being a college professor doesn't mean much. In fact, it has been my experience (based on my time at 3 different colleges) that it means they are even more 'out of touch' than us civilians. I'd like to know his credentials and most importantly, how much time he spends outside his 'ivory tower' to make his conclusions. I mean, what was the saying? "Those that can, do. Those that cant', teach?"

:asian:

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Most of the college professors I've dealt with (which, admittedly, has consisted of one small undergraduate school and a law school currently) have been pretty damned smart, and have actually inspired further analysis on some of my former assumptions. However, what gets to me is the idea that "I'm a professor, so I am automatically right, or at least more right than you". I have seen plenty a professor during undergrad get it completely wrong. Credentials are important, but they don't make a person infallible.

 

[michaeledward]

This report as of yesterday:


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=6333795

Iraq Now World's Most Hostile Environment-Analyst
Sun Sep 26, 2004 09:27 AM ET
By Andrew Hammond



DUBAI (Reuters) - The Iraqi insurgency has reached a critical new level with radical Sunni and Shi'ite groups spreading beyond their traditional bases in the world's "most hostile environment," a security analyst said on Sunday.

Paul Beat, director of International Asset Protection at London-based Control Risks Group, said the violence of recent weeks, with militants seizing foreign hostages from the heart of Baghdad and staging a spate of suicide bombings, marked a new stage in the conflict.

"Terrorists are operating in larger and larger groups and becoming more and more daring," Beat, a former counter-terrorist specialist in the British army, told Reuters on the sidelines of the forum in the United Arab Emirates on Iraq reconstruction. "They're launching bigger, multiple attacks. Now they use one vehicle at the entrance (to compounds) to knock out guards and then drive a second bomb through to get inside," he said.

The article continues at the linked page.