Wow, reading this website describing the British conquests of Baghdad in 1917 and 1941 feels an awful lot like today's war.

http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-bagdade.html

Quote :

"Wars in Mesopotamia were always about oil, oil and oil The Surprising Battles of Baghdad The Battles of Baghdad ? There were no battles. For the British troops taking the city in 1917 was, surprisingly, a piece of cake. Twentyfour years later, in 1941, they took the city again, this time by sheer bluff. Conquering Baghdad city is not a big deal, as became obvious again in 2003. The real problems always came afterwards. The lesson that politicians and generals time after time forget is: After breaking a regime in the Middle-Eeast you have to face the population and they, the people, are much more dangerous than the regime itself. This is the forgotten story of what happened to Baghdad."

Click on link above to read the rest.

Oh, and here are some similarities:

Quote :

""We come as liberators..." This is the Proclamation to the People of the Wilayat of Baghdad, that General Maude issued when he took the city: "People of Baghdad, remember for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have ever endeavoured to set one Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your dissensions. This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her Allies for there can be neither peace nor prosperity where there is enmity or misgovernment. Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.""

Sure they came to liberate! Fucking liars, they came for the oil.

That proclamation is from 1917.

When they came again in 1941, again it was for oil.

After 1917, they installed a puppet leader:

Quote :

"King Faisal promised to safeguard British oil-interests and he indeed granted large oil-concessions to British firms. For that Britain paid him £ 800,000 per month. "

And last, but not least, for the picture at:

http://www.greatwar.nl/bagdad/bagdad-2.jpg

Quote :

"The photograph above was taken the next day, on 12th March. It shows the 1st Division of the 4th Hampshire Regiment entering the city past a crowd of local onlookers. The division was, in fact, based at a garrison just outside Baghdad and was ordered to march into the city specifically for the purpose of this staged photograph."

Staged photograph of Western soldiers announcing victory in Iraq... hmmm, I think I have smelled it before.

8/23/2006 12:58:51 AM

I'm sure it did remind you of today's war a bit...considering that they spelled out the comparison for you and didn't leave you on your own to make up your mind.

8/23/2006 9:00:05 AM

the comparison has been made on this board before.

8/23/2006 9:05:26 AM

Military propaganda and skewing the truth has been used since before there were bullets. I think it's funny how people think that propaganda, skewed military reporting, and a favorable facade are only things that are present in recent history or are even unfavorable things to engage in. Public opinion can go a long way in a war. If your enemy thinks they are defeated, irregardless of reality, you have already won half the battle.

I'd also add that I'd rather see them distribute a staged picture if it means avoiding a conflict.

Of course now in today's media world this is becoming a less viable war tactic.

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 9:17 AM. Reason : -]

8/23/2006 9:09:45 AM

we're in Iraq so that we can cut our dependance on the Saudis

8/23/2006 12:02:22 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: I'm sure it did remind you of today's war a bit...considering that they spelled out the comparison for you and didn't leave you on your own to make up your mind."

Are you disputing the justifications given for the current war or the historical ones?

8/23/2006 12:17:07 PM

this is old

Look into the history of Afghanistan while you're at it. Many parallels

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2006 12:33:58 PM

If it's so obviously old, why is it untenable for one to suggest that oil motivated some advisors and officials into suggesting we go to war with Iraq?

8/23/2006 1:01:48 PM

^Huh, you mean businessmen helped start an international conflict by influencing governments with large coffers/promises of more money, more profits?

Survey says!..... old.

8/23/2006 1:29:56 PM

HOLY IGNORED QUESTION BATMAN

8/23/2006 1:33:02 PM

I have no doubt that there are people who were involved in our push to invade that sought and perhaps will profit from dealings in oil. That in and of itself does not make this "a war for oil," nor does it mean that Iraqi oil was a major reason for the invasion.

8/23/2006 3:03:00 PM

People who adamantly defend their belief in a single cause behind anything are irritating.

^ That's about as much sense as I've seen anyone make on what I've seen as the "war for oil vs. war AND oil" debate. I think the oil had a catalyzing effect, and a minor one.

8/23/2006 3:12:07 PM

You can draw parallels between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War, WWII, the Indian Wars, the Crimean War or any other armed conflict in hisptry to help you make sense of it.

But whats the point? Aside from making you feel like an intellectual, what hidden truths does that reveal?

8/23/2006 3:13:12 PM

Nothing hidden, I suspect. Anyone who doesn't know by now (and who in fact didn't know before) that taking Baghdad would be easier than winning over the country is kind of dumb. Sure, there are lots of dumb people, but I don't know why we should be pandering to them.

8/23/2006 3:15:39 PM

Doesn't anyone listen to George Santayana?

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 3:38 PM. Reason : r]

8/23/2006 3:17:37 PM

Even if I did, I don't have a vacuum where my own damn opinions should be.

8/23/2006 3:29:48 PM

There are worse opinions than Santayana's by far.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: You can draw parallels between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War, WWII, the Indian Wars, the Crimean War or any other armed conflict in hisptry to help you make sense of it. But whats the point?"

Understanding the world in which I operate?

Teaching my kids based on what I learn?

A million things.

Congratulations: You've just asked the stupidest rhetorical question currently in the Soap Box.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Aside from making you feel like an intellectual, what hidden truths does that reveal?"

The mass psychology of man.

Argue with that.

And take the rest of your sad, anti-intellectualist bent with you.

8/23/2006 3:50:04 PM

anti-intellectualist bent?

Yes, a grasp of history is good. However, no two situations are exactly alike, despite whatever parallels you can find. I can spend a lifetime learning about the middle east under colonial rule, but that wouldn't make me an expert on the modern middle east by any means.

The mass psychology of man? Thats not a total cop out at all. This war has handful of things in common with wars that took place decades ago. Great. Tell me what that tells you about the mass psychology of man that you wouldn't have realized were it not for your brilliant comparison making skills.

[Edited on August 23, 2006 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2006 3:59:11 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: However, no two situations are exactly alike, despite whatever parallels you can find."

I don't recall anyone ever teaching me to think that two situations had to be exactly alike in order for information about one to be useful in considering the other. How's that idea worked out for you?

I can only imagine what your ancestors were saying in the 1200.

Mine: "Boy, this Crusade sure looks a lot like the last one!"

Your: "NO WAY! THEY ARE NOT EXACTLY ALIKE!!1"

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Tell me what that tells you about the mass psychology of man that you wouldn't have realized were it not for your brilliant comparison making skills."

That's an awful lot of pressure you're putting me under. Sure hope I can handle it...

That it really isn't all that different than the mass psychology of chimps, AND it also hasn't advanced much over the last 100 years--despite our cultural insistence that it has evolved, it's really just shifted the availability of information.

Otherwise, we wouldn't keep making the same mistakes, the same ways, in the same places, repeatedly.

Now, instead of just hopping up and launching more charges of pseudointellectualism, why don't you venture an opinion yourself? Perhaps something a little more original than "a grasp of history is good."

Or, for bonus points, please present the case that it's somehow more intellectual to simply bash the opinions of others than to present your own?

8/23/2006 5:16:32 PM

Quote :

"I can only imagine what your ancestors were saying in the 1200. Mine: "Boy, this Crusade sure looks a lot like the last one!" Your: "NO WAY! THEY ARE NOT EXACTLY ALIKE!!1""

Another brilliant comparison. Its a shame that you can't hear me clapping for you over the internet.

Quote :

"Now, instead of just hopping up and launching more charges of pseudointellectualism, why don't you venture an opinion yourself?"

I'm full of opinions, however, I didn't see the need to present one just to point out the logical fallicies of making comparisons between post WWI anti-colonial struggles for independence and an insurgency aimed at a post-regime change army that slowly devolves into civil war between religious sects.

Quote :

"Perhaps something a little more original than "a grasp of history is good.""

Did you go out of your way to miss the point on that one? Impressive.

8/23/2006 5:59:28 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Another brilliant comparison. Its a shame that you can't hear me clapping for you over the internet."

Fair enough. So, now that I've called you out for the trap you were setting, would you care to explain what you meant with this:

"However, no two situations are exactly alike, despite whatever parallels you can find. I can spend a lifetime learning about the middle east under colonial rule, but that wouldn't make me an expert on the modern middle east by any means."

Because, I can't possibly figure it out. Nobody's claimed to be an expert on the modern Middle East in this or any other thread.

Whether the two are exactly alike or not, were there or were there not lessons from the imperial Middle East that could have impacted the current conflit?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: I'm full of opinions, however, I didn't see the need to present one just to point out the logical fallicies of making comparisons between post WWI anti-colonial struggles for independence and an insurgency aimed at a post-regime change army that slowly devolves into civil war between religious sects."

Oh bullshit.

Effectively, you've already done so--just in a pathetic way. Relying on Nikzor to do your homework instead of your history book, and after commenting on the importance of grasping history, no less. Let's get it out in the open.

Tell me, O wise and logical one, what are those gigantic differences in situation at play here that all us liberals do not understand?

I'm expecting more than a litany of different technologies, names, and dates, but truly, one can only hope.

8/23/2006 6:13:35 PM

Quote :

"There are worse opinions than Santayana's by far."

Sure, and no doubt a lot of you would say mine certainly qualified. That's not my point. In the past two or three years I have not seen a shred of evidence to lead me to believe that pryderi is capable of synthesizing his own ideas. So when he says, "Why don't you listen to him?" I just think, "Oh, now you're so lazy you won't even take the time to copy-and-paste for us?"

8/23/2006 6:44:21 PM

i'm just sayin

satayana can represent

8/23/2006 6:55:40 PM

Quote :

"So, now that I've called you out for the trap you were setting, would you care to explain what you meant with this"

What trap was I setting?

Quote :

"Nobody's claimed to be an expert on the modern Middle East in this or any other thread."

Where did I say that?

Quote :

"Whether the two are exactly alike or not, were there or were there not lessons from the imperial Middle East that could have impacted the current conflit?"

Could have? Sure. I'm just asking what groundbreaking new conclusions you came to. You threw out the vague umbrella of "the mass psychology of man" and never expanded on it. I'm still waiting to hear how reading about british experience has enlightened you regarding the current war.

Quote :

"Effectively, you've already done so--just in a pathetic way."

What opinions have I expressed other than a general disdain for poorly thought out conclusions and pointless comparisons?

Quote :

"Relying on Nikzor to do your homework instead of your history book, and after commenting on the importance of grasping history, no less."

What are you even talking about here? When in this thread did I use Nikzor at all? By the way, I was a history/psych major, so I've got a good grasp on history as well as the vague "mass psychology of man" thing that you mentioned.

Quote :

"Tell me, O wise and logical one, what are those gigantic differences in situation at play here that all us liberals do not understand?"

Where did political stance even come into play in this discussion? Now you're just trying to dismiss my thoughts as simple political rhetoric instead of actually having a discussion.

Now, please, lets get back to the "mass psychology of man". What information regarding that can you extract from the comparison made between colonial Iraq and post-Saddam Iraq?

8/23/2006 6:56:56 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: What trap was I setting?"

"However, no two situations are exactly alike, despite whatever parallels you can find."

And thus are incomparable. Anything I'd suggest might be similar to Vietnam is immediately invalid, by your logic, because the two aren't exactly alike. One's a desert, one's a jungle. OMF PWNT.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Where did I say that?"

"I can spend a lifetime learning about the middle east under colonial rule, but that wouldn't make me an expert on the modern middle east by any means."

I mean, do you READ the words you write?

Or is playing ignorance the way you win debates? Exhausting your opponents into submission by asking them to go back and repost every sentence you type?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: I'm still waiting to hear how reading about british experience has enlightened you regarding the current war."

No matter how vast and resourceful your empire may be, when the vastest majority of those you liberate tell others you're occupiers, and you go into it with the footing that your enemy is an "uncivilized state" so to speak, you're not going to have much luck convincing the natives you're worth listening to...

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: You threw out the vague umbrella of "the mass psychology of man" and never expanded on it."

I guess you aren't really paying attention.

Otherwise you'd have caught this part: "That it really isn't all that different than the mass psychology of chimps, AND it also hasn't advanced much over the last 100 years--despite our cultural insistence that it has evolved, it's really just shifted the availability of information."

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: What are you even talking about here? When in this thread did I use Nikzor at all?"

By crying fallacy instead of backing yourself up with historical comparisons. If I'm wrong, say why. If I'm lacking historical knowledge, share it. If it's a fallacy and historically incomprable, and you're so historically informed you know so, say why.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: By the way, I was a history/psych major, so I've got a good grasp on history as well as the vague "mass psychology of man" thing that you mentioned."

Good for you. Not every Business major consumes himself with the latest and greatest wealth-gathering strategies.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Where did political stance even come into play in this discussion? Now you're just trying to dismiss my thoughts as simple political rhetoric instead of actually having a discussion."

This discussion didn't occur in a vacuum. Your distaste for "liberals" is well documented.

You've ignored again a direct question about the differences instead of expressing your own opinion, dismissing them [i]yourself instead of presenting them for the consideration of others. A very bold move.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: What information regarding that can you extract from the comparison made between colonial Iraq and post-Saddam Iraq?"

Not that I haven't already addressed this or anything, but I've extracted at least this much: internally led revolution is more sustainable than externally imposed order.

8/24/2006 10:31:31 AM

Quote :

"Anything I'd suggest might be similar to Vietnam is immediately invalid, by your logic, because the two aren't exactly alike. One's a desert, one's a jungle."

I was actually talking about the many political, cultural, social, and economic factors that have been ignored, but if you need to dumb it down so you can understand it thats cool too.

Quote :

"I mean, do you READ the words you write? Or is playing ignorance the way you win debates? Exhausting your opponents into submission by asking them to go back and repost every sentence you type?"

No you're just grasping at straws. Who did I accuse of claiming to be an expert on the middle east? I simply stated that study of 1917 Iraq will not make anyone an expert on 2006 Iraq, I was not pointing a finger at any one, specific person. It actually hurts my brain to come down to your level and explain this to you.

Quote :

"No matter how vast and resourceful your empire may be, when the vastest majority of those you liberate tell others you're occupiers, and you go into it with the footing that your enemy is an "uncivilized state" so to speak, you're not going to have much luck convincing the natives you're worth listening to..."

Basically people don't like being occupied. That just blew my mind. I'm so glad that you could look to the anti-colonial struggle in Iraq and explain that to us. Its not like that has been proven by every single conflict in human history or anything.

Quote :

"That it really isn't all that different than the mass psychology of chimps, AND it also hasn't advanced much over the last 100 years--despite our cultural insistence that it has evolved, it's really just shifted the availability of information"

OK. How does that effect the Iraq war? What did the anti-colonial struggle show us about psychology that we wouldn't know otherwise?

Quote :

"By crying fallacy instead of backing yourself up with historical comparisons. If I'm wrong, say why. If I'm lacking historical knowledge, share it. If it's a fallacy and historically incomprable, and you're so historically informed you know so, say why."

Fair enough. The British did come as liberators. They were granted control of Iraq by the League of Nations after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWII, every country that fought on side of the Central Powers lost territory as punishment. A common misconception is that Iraq had historically been a British colony along the lines of India. However, this did not keep the British empire from abusing Iraqi oil.

When they returned in the 1940s it was a strategic move in the greater context of WWII. A Nazi-sponsored coup had overthrown the monarchy with the aim of securing the oil reserves for Hitler(much of Hitler's conquest on the eastern front was in an attempt to secure oil resources). The British intervention was aimed at preventing this.

To simply point this out along with other coincidences (the term "liberate" as well as mentioning staged photographs), while mischaracterizing the British venture as imperialistic, and then implying that the two situations are analogous is ludicrous.

Quote :

"This discussion didn't occur in a vacuum. Your distaste for "liberals" is well documented."

Where is that documented? I am about as middle of the road as they come, and as such I will call anyone out, regardless of political stance, if they say something stupid. By the way, why is "liberals" in quotation marks?

Quote :

"Not that I haven't already addressed this or anything, but I've extracted at least this much: internally led revolution is more sustainable than externally imposed order."

Wow. I'm pretty sure that anyone who completed 4th grade social studies could have told me that.

But what do I know? Apparently I'm some stupid trap setting anti-intellectualist unopinionated puppet who spews right wing rhetoric in lieu of my own ideas.

8/24/2006 4:53:25 PM

Quote :

"I was actually talking about the many political, cultural, social, and economic factors that have been ignored, but if you need to dumb it down so you can understand it thats cool too."

The point was illustrative of the lengths to which your absurdism would go.

When you look at any specific detail, the two are incomparable. Shocking that nobody disagrees with you.

Quote :

"Basically people don't like being occupied. That just blew my mind. I'm so glad that you could look to the anti-colonial struggle in Iraq and explain that to us. Its not like that has been proven by every single conflict in human history or anything."

The same reductionism of which you've just accused me. I can only assume you don't want a serious response.

Quote :

"How does that effect the Iraq war?"

How quickly, again on a massive scale, its evolution paces with increased availability and flow of information within a war zone. That's from a purely reductionist point of view, though.

Quote :

"What did the anti-colonial struggle show us about psychology that we wouldn't know otherwise?"

How long it takes a technologically disadvantaged populace within an occupied territory in the Middle East to liberate itself from a Western power with superior technology. In that age, versus this age.

Quote :

"By the way, why is "liberals" in quotation marks?"

I guess you'd like to continue feigning innocence. The rest of us have got the message: it's a bad word.

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure that anyone who completed 4th grade social studies could have told me that."

Redefinition of the problem.

Bush's foreign policy advisors evidently haven't completed 4th grade social studies.

Quote :

"But what do I know? Apparently I'm some stupid trap setting anti-intellectualist unopinionated puppet who spews right wing rhetoric in lieu of my own ideas."

You've still yet to present much in the way of ideas.

8/24/2006 8:26:14 PM

Quote :

"The point was illustrative of the lengths to which your absurdism would go."

Oh, it was a strawman. I get it now.

Quote :

"The same reductionism of which you've just accused me. I can only assume you don't want a serious response."

strawman =/reductionism

Quote :

"How quickly, again on a massive scale, its evolution paces with increased availability and flow of information within a war zone."

How is that specific to the 1917 Iraq and 2006 Iraq? What was the necessity of drawing the comparison to figure that out?

Quote :

"How long it takes a technologically disadvantaged populace within an occupied territory in the Middle East to liberate itself from a Western power with superior technology."

Thats not an issue of psychology.

Quote :

"I guess you'd like to continue feigning innocence."

So you're still trying to call me out as a closet conservative because I question you? The maturity blows my mind.

Quote :

"You've still yet to present much in the way of ideas."

I've already laid out the nature of the British involvement in Iraq and pointed out the folly of thinking of the two situations as analogous.

You've done nothing but make vague comments about oppressed people and psychology that isn't specific to any single conflict.

8/25/2006 2:17:40 PM

You win.

I'm too dumb to argue with you.

8/25/2006 4:55:49 PM

i like to complain about how high gas prices are and then get pissed when we go to war for free oil

8/25/2006 4:59:22 PM

wheres my cheap gas prices then?

8/25/2006 5:00:55 PM

Somewhere near that free oil, I suppose.

8/25/2006 5:02:18 PM

I might be too dumb, but I'm unfortunately not too bored just yet:

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Oh, it was a strawman. I get it now."

If you call responding to the content of your preceding post--the very opposite of a real strawman--a strawman, then yes.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: strawman =/reductionism"

And what, pray tell, do you call turning this statement of mine, literally 54 words whose content express (1) relative powers of sides, (2) the specific views of the occupier held by the ruled and the reverse, and (3) the specific source of the underlying problem shared between the conflicts:

"No matter how vast and resourceful your empire may be, when the vastest majority of those you liberate tell others you're occupiers, and you go into it with the footing that your enemy is an "uncivilized state" so to speak, you're not going to have much luck convincing the natives you're worth listening to..."

Into: "Basically people don't like being occupied."

Literally 6 words that express ONLY one point, deliberately broaden the scope of the debate unnecessarily, and fundamentally ignore the 3rd point I made above: THE SOURCE OF THE GODDAMN PROBLEM. Reductionism is the theory that dictates that the nature of complex things can always be reduced to or explained by simpler or more fundamental things. If the above isn't reductionism, I'm a fucking turtle.

Reductionism can even be useful, but not when overapplied, and illogically so.

Which brings up another point (one I'm sure you'll also ignore)...

If my understanding of English, Wikipedia's definitions of strawman and reductionism are correct, I'd say that both reductionism such as you've obviously demonstrated (or denied in the quoted text above, you're predictably ambiguous, so it's unclear), play very well into the description of a "bogus, distorted or deliberately-flawed interpretation of an otherwise valid position that has been altered so it can be more easily attacked." Otherwise known as a strawman.

Seemingly your post was both reductionist and a strawman.

Your "not equal" sign appears to contradict this interpretation. Oh dear.

Your penchant for finding specks of fallacy in my eye seems pretty sharp. But tell me, how're yours looking right about now?

Because I'm beginning to think I was pissing this into the wind earlier:

Quote :

"Gamecat: I mean, do you READ the words you write? Or is playing ignorance the way you win debates? Exhausting your opponents into submission by asking them to go back and repost every sentence you type?"

I'll only appreciate how you'll continue to prove me right by flagrantly ignoring pretty much all of the content of my posts. Even the ones in which I answered--different times and in different terms--your questions about the lessons as far as different fronts were concerned.

But I should probably cut it short here.

The fact that not every lesson learned by every person on Earth isn't representative of the lesson you think should come from it doesn't in any way influence the validity or invalidity of their lessons. You seem to have committed the sin of confusing whatever the fuck you think could've been learned ("space aliens should be contacted" is as good a guess as any considering all of the ideas you've presented) with THE ONLY thing that could be learned.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: How is that specific to the 1917 Iraq and 2006 Iraq? What was the necessity of drawing the comparison to figure that out?"

Because the "increased availability and flow of information in a war zone" was a pronounced difference between an otherwise similar--BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME--interaction between similar cultures, with similar power roles, cultural heritage, political doctrines, religious beliefs, and a multitude of other factors you rarely see held in such "control" from a historical standpoint.

All I can wonder now is how you're supposed to expect every non-history major who might be curious about such things to have known of other such examples whose more recent conflicts involve the post-Internet era that would represent the other similar--BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME--factors held in control.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Thats not an issue of psychology."

If that's not the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard, I don't know what is. I don't care what your major is.

Do you mean to tell me there aren't psychological, or more properly (as it relates to myself) mass psychological issues of CHOICE involved involved in "How long it takes a technologically disadvantaged populace within an occupied territory in the Middle East to liberate itself from a Western power with superior technology?"

Because I think you've failed your education badly if you think so.

Otherwise I just think you've been a reductionist prick. Again.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: So you're still trying to call me out as a closet conservative because I question you? The maturity blows my mind."

And your predilection for illogically jumping to conclusions blows mine.

Where'd I say you were a closet conservative?

Because I'd swear all I implied what that you shared an attitude commonly expressed by conservatives. Feel free to "prove me wrong" by whatever flailing means you might employ.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: I've already laid out the nature of the British involvement in Iraq and pointed out the folly of thinking of the two situations as analogous."

That folly is just a logical fallacy, and a weak one due almost exclusively to absurdist expectations of similarity on your part. There's no logical science of comparing historical events in the manner I'm referring to (not without access to information I'm unable to pay for), and you either know that or slept through the class where they taught you.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: You've done nothing but make vague comments about oppressed people and psychology that isn't specific to any single conflict."

1) My comments aren't vague. As can be seen by anyone else who bothered to read them before reading your descriptions of them.

2) The phenomenon I'm referencing is specific to two specific conflicts of relevance contrasted to reflect its magnitude. The same phenomenon has appeared in other conflicts as well, and appears pretty much everywhere, but its effects clearly demonstrate it accelerated exponentially in pace with the recent conflict.

Kindly inform us of the specific relevance of your point. Or are you again ignoring, as I suspect you wish to continue to, the subject matter we're debating?

8/25/2006 7:47:52 PM

Quote :

"If you call responding to the content of your preceding post--the very opposite of a real strawman--a strawman, then yes."

Quote :

"Anything I'd suggest might be similar to Vietnam is immediately invalid, by your logic, because the two aren't exactly alike. One's a desert, one's a jungle. OMF PWNT."

To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. - wiki

Yes, that is a strawman.

Quote :

"(1) relative powers of sides, (2) the specific views of the occupier held by the ruled and the reverse, and (3) the specific source of the underlying problem shared between the conflicts"

(1) Relative power doesn't need to be mentioned. Obviously the occupier will be the more powerful, vast, resourceful, etc side.
(2) An occupation is an occupation regardless of the views of the occupier. Again, this isn't even worth addressing.
(3) The underlying problem is that people don't like being occupied.

Had your other "points" been worth addressing, or if I had known that you would have pitched a hissy fit when I glossed over them, I would have addressed them initially. Is this your plan? Be overly wordy and then try to call me out for ignoring the smallest details of your comments?

That was not my creating a strawman. That was extracting the point of your statement while pushing aside the worthless packaging material that it came in.

Quote :

"No matter how vast and resourceful your empire may be, when the vastest majority of those you liberate tell others you're occupiers, and you go into it with the footing that your enemy is an "uncivilized state" so to speak, you're not going to have much luck convincing the natives you're worth listening to"

Regardless, what you are trying to say has been proven by almost every single conflict in human history. Why must one turn to the British experience in Iraq to figure that out?

Quote :

"Because the "increased availability and flow of information in a war zone" was a pronounced difference between an otherwise similar--BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME--interaction between similar cultures, with similar power roles, cultural heritage, political doctrines, religious beliefs, and a multitude of other factors you rarely see held in such "control" from a historical standpoint."

So are you actually trying to say that the only major difference between 2006 Iraq and 1917 Iraq is the flow of infomation? Iraq today, or 3 years ago for that matter, was vastly different in every aspect; socially, culturally, economically, as well as politically.

How in Gods name is 2006 America close enough to 1917 Great Britain to make any comparison valid?

Quote :

"How long it takes a technologically disadvantaged populace within an occupied territory in the Middle East to liberate itself from a Western power with superior technology?"

I see what you're saying now, but you're original statement was poorly worded. I read it as a question of how long it would take an armed revolt to triumph. Yes, there are psychological issues here, but do you really think that Iraqis are the same now as they were 90 years ago psychologically? Do you have any idea what the have gone through since then that has altered their perception of the west? The Iraqi of 2006 is fundamentally different than the Iraqi of 1917, for foreign and domestic reasons.

Quote :

"Where'd I say you were a closet conservative? Because I'd swear all I implied what that you shared an attitude commonly expressed by conservatives."

Pardon me, you implied something instead of explicitly stating it. Now you're trying to bait me into arguing over what you meant. I feel like I'm watching a monkey dance.

Quote :

"That folly is just a logical fallacy, and a weak one due almost exclusively to absurdist expectations of similarity on your part. There's no logical science of comparing historical events in the manner I'm referring to (not without access to information I'm unable to pay for), and you either know that or slept through the class where they taught you."

The absurd expectation is your asumption that because both involve western involvement in Iraq that they are similar enough that a casual comparison will heighten your understanding of the current conflict.

Quote :

"My comments aren't vague. As can be seen by anyone else who bothered to read them before reading your descriptions of them."

If you want to convince me, then give me some specific gems of knowledge. Thus far you've only presented vague mentions of mass psychology, the flow of information, and internal order vs. foreign occupation. I could have told you any of that even if I had never heard of Iraq.

What good has come of your comparison?

Quote :

"The same phenomenon has appeared in other conflicts as well, and appears pretty much everywhere, but its effects clearly demonstrate it accelerated exponentially in pace with the recent conflict."

So what do you have to gain by comparing it to a dynamically different conflict a century ago? Basically someone posted mention of British efforts to control wartime oil supplies as a part of strategy, then pointed out some minor similarities in order to evoke a knee jerk reinforcing the notion of an American "war for oil".

Quote :

"Kindly inform us of the specific relevance of your point."

My point is that comparison such as this serve no purpose other than to make the armchair intellectual making the comparison feel good. So far you have yet to disprove me.

Quote :

"Or are you again ignoring, as I suspect you wish to continue to, the subject matter we're debating?"

What have I ignored? I'm doing my best to find the vague statements bundled up in misused words and run on sentences.

8/25/2006 10:00:44 PM