Why Didn't Iraq Take Care Of Themselves?

[Ugly Bastard]

Don't read this...I don't know what I'm talkin about.
---------------
I just ate dinner with Orgazmo, and we had one of those "what if" kinda conversations where we ponder the meaning of life, etc...

I came up with the following question during all this:

If the Iraqi people were being murdered and tortured by Saddam Hussein, why didn't they just kick him out of office? I know that sounds simple, but go with me here.

Say somehow George Bush gained control of this country. The Constitution went out the window, and he became our dictator. Would we just sit back and wait for Britain or someone else to come save our asses by getting George out of power? I know I wouldn't. If I didn't want him in power, I would do everything I could do to get him out, even if it meant giving up my life.

That's what I don't get. If the Iraqi people really wanted Saddam out of power, then why didn't they just do it instead of waiting on us to come to their rescue? Kinda seems like a weak nationality of people to me.

I dunno...maybe I'm just rambling here and missing a very key variable that would answer my question.

Oh, another thing: Why on Earth did we decide that Saddam should be taken out of power? Who the hell do we think we are? I know I'm hinting at the Isolationist Theory here...but I think it's a damn good question. Americans are no better human beings than Iraqis are...what the fuck were we doing just marching over there and changing their shit around? Sometimes I'm not 'proud' to be an American...I guess this is one of those times. I'm sure soon I'll stop thinking so clearly, and just go back to blindly following American Patriotism.

-Ugly Bastard

[AcTivE]

I think it's sorta like Walmart. Once something becomes so powerful, there is no way it can be taken over.

Chemical weapons are powerful shit...people had no chance.

[StDx]

Welcome to the dark side, Ugly.

Soon you may start realizing that some things our government does are throwing the constitution out the window. How do we all feel about the Patriot Act?

[ April 25, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: StDx ]

[the Butcher]

Originally posted by Ugly Bastard:
Americans are no better human beings than Iraqis are.

And that's where you're wrong. I am a better person because I'm American. After all, any nationality whose nickname has the word "nigger" in it (sand nigger), has to be shit.

[StDx]

ethnocentrically your argument is very solid.

[ April 25, 2004, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: StDx ]

[Schroeder]

You've got to remember that Iraq has never know anything but dicatorship, UB. Fightin back isn't in them, because they've never known things could be better.

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally posted by Schroeder:
they've never known things could be better.

It's that right there that pisses me off. What's to say that their dictatorship isn't "better" than our freedom as Americans? We're so quick to assume that we know what's best for everyone, yet we never stop to think that maybe our ideals aren't the best.

-Ugly Bastard

[ April 25, 2004, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Ugly Bastard ]

[George Sherman]

No, its just because they are pussy bitches.

[George Sherman]

Originally posted by Ugly Bastard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Schroeder:
they've never known things could be better.

It's that right there that pisses me off. What's to say that their dictatorship isn't "better" than our freedom as Americans? We're so quick to assume that we know what's best for everyone, yet we never stop to think that maybe our ideals aren't the best.

-Ugly Bastard</font>[/quote]Very good argument, but also very old argument. I have heard that used in alot of arguments I have had mainly dealing with religion, whose to say that buddism is any better than christianity. Its just one of those things that you can't realy answer.

It all comes back to the happiness of the people.
And to that I would like to introduce the seratonin-dopamine system of politics.

My theory is that the only true motivator of man is the amount of dopamine in your brain (the stuff that makes you happy).

If Americans are happier as a whole than the Iraqis (and they most definitely are), then they are doing things better.

Kind of a quirky way of thinking about things, but lately its how I've been contimplating the world, and it kind of works.

[StabMaster Arson]

DJ, that's an interesting theory. Unfortunately, it's complete horseshit. It's entire basis is on your assumption that, as a whole, Americans are happier than Iraqis? keep thinking, dipshit.

According to your ass-backwards thinking, the happier the country the better... let's do a little equation:

happier population = better country
more dopamine in brains = happier population
more dopamine in brains = better country

now, what's the easiest way to increase dopamine levels in the brain? why that's cocaine and lots of it. you see, cocaine blocks the reuptake of dopamine from the brain, so it gets trapped there.

more cokeheads = better country

A wise man once said that happiness only comes in small doses.

[AcTivE]

If happiness comes in small doses, how does coke make a country happier?

Originally posted by StabMaster Arson:
DJ, that's an interesting theory. Unfortunately, it's complete horseshit. It's entire basis is on your assumption that, as a whole, Americans are happier than Iraqis? keep thinking, dipshit.

According to your ass-backwards thinking, the happier the country the better... let's do a little equation:

happier population = better country
more dopamine in brains = happier population
more dopamine in brains = better country

now, what's the easiest way to increase dopamine levels in the brain? why that's cocaine and lots of it. you see, cocaine blocks the reuptake of dopamine from the brain, so it gets trapped there.

more cokeheads = better country

A wise man once said that happiness only comes in small doses.

You know I was playfully trying to propose a little theory (not to be taken completely seriously of course). But then you went and ruined it. Of course it's not all about dopamine, but the chemicals in your brain play an extremely great function in happiness, and the greater the proportion of dopamine, the happier you are.
The problem with cocaine is that you do not take into the effect the millions of other factors, such as the fact that it causes a serious imbalance in the nerotransmitters in your brain. On a societal level, it causes more harm than good, hence a decrease in overall dopamine levels. I cannot stress this point more... it's my original point.

PS. There is study after study to confirm that I am indeed correct, here is one:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HAPPINES.html

The utilitarians have posited the basic value or goal that society should strive for as "the greatest happiness for the greatest number".

And how does happiness generally break down?

wealth
(measured by average purchasing power). This is obviously an important measure of the material competence to satisfy basic needs. It is interesting to note that the correlation between purchasing power and happiness becomes less important for more wealthy societies, implying that once the basic material needs of nutrition and shelter are satisfied, further prosperity adds little to happiness.
access to knowledge
(measured by literacy, school enrolment and media attendance). This obviously reflects the component of cognitive competence.
personal freedom
people are more satisfied in societies which minimally restrict their freedom of action, in other words, where they are in control rather than being controlled. This is again a form of material competence.
equality
this factor is somewhat less pronounced. Social inequality implies less control for those who are in the weaker position, and more risks of losing their privileges for those in the stronger position.
&gt; On the individual level, the differences in happiness between people living in the same society depend on their situation and on their personal characteristics:
health
life-satisfaction tends to be larger among those that are in good physical and mental health. Inversely, happy people are much less likely to fall ill and die than unhappy people (Blakeslee & Grossarth-Maticek). This directly reflects the strong correlation between happiness and biological fitness.
psychological characteristics
happy people are characterized by the belief that they are able to control their situation, whereas unhappy people tend to believe that they are a toy of fate. This reflects what we have called subjective competence. Happy people are also more psychologically resilient, assertive, empathetic and open to experience. These are all features which, according to our theory of self-actualization (Heylighen, 1992), accompany the perceived competence to satisfy needs.
social position
happiness is more common among those that have intimate ties (e.g. marriage) and that participate in various organizations. This reflects the degree to which people manage to satisfy their social needs, and get better control of their own situation by relying on the support of others. Occupationally, happiness tends to be more common among professionals and managers, that is, people who are in control of the work they do, rather than subservient to their bosses.
life-events
happiness is clearly correlated with the presence of favorable events (such as promotion, marriage, etc. ) and the absence of troubles or bad luck (such as accidents, being laid off, conflicts, etc.). These events on their own signal the success or failure to reach one's goals, and therefore the control one has.

In just about all these factors, the average American has the edge over the average Iraqi, and I doubt many experts in this area would deny that Americans are indeed happier than Iraqis.

An evolutionary theory of happiness must clarify the connection between the objective property of fitness and the subjective experience of feeling well. Biologically, feelings function to orient an organism away from dangerous situations (signalled by unpleasant affects such as fear, hunger or pain), and towards positive situations (signalled by positive affects, such as enjoyment, love, satisfaction). Thus, feelings play the role of vicarious selectors: they select appropriate actions, such as drinking when thirsty, and reject inappropriate actions, such as touching a flame, thus substituting for natural selection. Therefore, positive feelings will normally indicate that the organism is approaching the optimal state.

It's almost purely chemical, and to deny this fact means you are uninformed.

[StabMaster Arson]

If I said I cared enough to read that shit, I'd be lying. fuck you.

[Schroeder]

Originally posted by Ugly Bastard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Schroeder:
they've never known things could be better.

It's that right there that pisses me off. What's to say that their dictatorship isn't "better" than our freedom as Americans? We're so quick to assume that we know what's best for everyone, yet we never stop to think that maybe our ideals aren't the best.

-Ugly Bastard</font>[/quote]Hey, if they had a dictatorship with a dictator who actually treated them well, that'd be fine too. Or a nice king. Or Communism. Hell, I don't care, but what they had certainly wasn't working for the people.

I have no claims as to knowing what's best for people. Most of the time I don't even know what's best for myself.

Well you obviously cared enough to be a dickhead for little reason.

[StabMaster Arson]

awww, did I hurt your feelings?

Nope.

[Whino]

StabMaster...ahaha your are an ass mongrel aren't you. I like the name did you come up with that yourself. And ummm back of dj fc or ill cut you balls off. aight. peace love and harmony

[StabMaster Arson]

*enter dj's boyfriend

[corvax]

Personally, I think that if we, the citizens of America, decided to overthrow Bush, we would get our asses slaughtered by the U.S. military. Same for the Iraqis and Saddam.

We invaded Iraq under the premise that they were an immediate threat to us...which was probably bullshit. We could say we invaded for the good of the oppressed Iraqis, which I'd like to think is a worthy enough cause, but we didn't do shit when 800,000 or however many Rwandans were being macheted to death. So, I guess I don't really know why exactly we invaded. Anyone care to explain?

DJ FC, when did you start sounding so academic?

Originally posted by StabMaster Arson:
*enter dj's boyfriend

You are just jealous.

[Whino]

AssMaster youre a dork. Honestly who stays up till 2:30 posting messages, I can only hope you were partying or something, but id put money on it you just couldn’t sleep cause you were thinking about what people were posting. Just so you know Dj Fc rocks and if you have any other smart ass comments ill put bad juju on you. If you apologize everything will be cool and well forget this whole thing.

[Pliedes]

Originally posted by corvax:
We could say we invaded for the good of the oppressed Iraqis, which I'd like to think is a worthy enough cause, but we didn't do shit when 800,000 or however many Rwandans were being macheted to death. So, I guess I don't really know why exactly we invaded. Anyone care to explain?

So let me get this straight.

You said that invading a country to liberate/help it's people is indeed a worthy cause.
But since we didn't do what was right in Rwanda, we shouldn't do what's right in Iraq?

Just because we (and the rest of the world) dropped the ball in Rwanda, that doesn't negate your previous arguement, it just means that in that specific instance we didn't act when we should have.

As for an explanation as to difference between the two situations, I think having different presidents during the two different periods would be the logical conlusion

[I'm not making an arguement either way, I just want to help Corvax to clean us his/her fuzzy thinking.]

[ April 27, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Pliedes ]

I think what corvax was doing was to bring out the fuzzy thinking in the decision to go to war. It isn't his fuzzy thinking. If you knew corvax like I do, you would realize his thinking is probobly as sharp as a Hattori Hanzo sword.