Ugh, if anything about this could possibly resemble your life in any way, just know, you're a fucking train wreck along with those you are in a relationship with.

Repressed shit that triggered me

For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

To quote Rashida, it is important to become more sensitive before being less sensitive.

I agree that being a Humanist is more inclusive. However, that umbrella word covers the valid word "feminist."

Trying to erase the word "feminist," scolding women and men for labeling themselves feminist, ignoring their particular need for that label as equality is struggled for is anti-Humanist, @newtboy.

Just sayin'.

And I'm the first person to speak up for how hard it is to be a man. Men are HORRIBLE to each other, for starters. In fact, I said it just last night, more than once, during a convo on the patriarchy after watching the 2007 movie made in Turkey called Bliss." There was some serious oppression of women in that movie -- very hard to watch. And it is important that the pressures that men are under are seen as just that -- human struggles and repressed pain that is masked by some really shitty outward behavior.

No need to tear down anyone else who is trying to improve their life and society in general. It is called being a Humanist.

"If you want to fit in and cause the least amount of trouble..." then the painfully repressive japanese culture may be for you.

The Jews were not fleeing anything but fear in the 30s...or came too late and missed the cutoff.

So, the Jews that fled in the 30s weren't legitimately fleeing anything but fear, and the Jews that fled after the 30s weren't legitimate because they waited until too late. Gotcha.

Perhaps you came closer to summarizing your position earlier:
Perhaps if those Jews were still in Europe fighting against the Nazis, they wouldn't have made it out of Germany.

Historically, there is a zero percent chance that more Jewish fighters in Europe could've kept the Nazi's from making it out of Germany. Worse, the ambiguity of your sentence also suggests that maybe your suggesting that if the Jews had stayed in Europe fighting, it was them that wouldn't have made it out of Germany, which would be quite correct.

You are making it very difficult to interpret your view in any kind of positive light. Despite the fact that one of the greatest genocides in history was about to hit them and their children, you insist that Jews fleeing in 30s were fleeing "nothing but fear". More over, you seem adamant in defending the notion that as the holocaust survivors landed in Palestine and were being looked after by existing Jewish Palestinians, it is they and they alone that were the aggressors in Palestine. It is well established history that BOTH Arab and Jewish Palestinians treated each other equally poorly through the 30s and 40s. More over, the Jewish Palestinians remained the minority. I'm inclined to lend a bit of understanding to an aggressive response from holocaust survivors yet again facing repression and saying NO! Doubly so when upon accepting a 2 state solution, all the surrounding nations of the middle east jointly declared war upon them with the declared intent of driving the Jews into the sea. It was only 2 years prior that the whole of Europe was controlled by Nazis trying to do the same thing. What can be realistically expected of the Jewish refugees in Palestine? Fighting kept them alive, in Palestine and I find it hard to fathom an alternate history were laying down arms would've seen any Jews still alive in the area,

Exactly @newtboy...

These people are promising massive violence to defend people who were found guilty of violating the law, who purposely set fire to a forest... "They didn't mean for it to get out of control." Yeah, doesn't matter. I don't understand how they can't comprehend that. How it is an overreach of government to try them via a court of law, found guilty and then sentenced to the minimum?

I like how Fox spins it about how it would be if it were blacks, but I think a better example would be if they were Muslim. If they were Muslim Fox and the Republicans would all be screaming about how they are Radicalized Islamic Terrorist. Trump would undoubtedly be calling for Muslim Americans to be put into Internment Camps "temporarily" "while we can figure out what is going on with these people". He'd then say once we carefully vetted them, we'd let them go, but keep track of them, those we can't vet, we'd kick out... and his supporters would fall over themselves agreeing. They'd be mad at any Democrat or media who doesn't use the term "Radicalized Islamic Terrorist" rather than "Jihadist" or "Radicalized Jihadist".

Yet if somebody called these people for what they are, which is Radicalized Christian Terrorist, they'd blow a gasket. They'd say that their faith has nothing to do with it, though the leader said he was led by God to do this. Or they'd argue that the term can't apply here, and can't apply to the guy who murdered people at the Planned Parenthood clinic. "These people are freedom fighters, not terrorist." They are standing against the oppressive power of the Obama administration, and probably point out his middle name again.

So... we have people, driven by God and faith to promise violence if their political ends aren't met... Sounds like terrorism to me. Oh... and that particular God and faith is Christianity. So Radicalized Christian Terrorism. Pure and simple... unless we need to drop the term Radicalized if this is what Christianity is about now... though I'm fairly sure the Jesus of the Bible would object, then again he'd object to pretty much everything the political right stands for, but that's a rant I've done tons of times here.

Crazy thing is, if the government uses force, then the political right and media will feel justified, and say "see, we are being repressed". They've learned from ISIL and the rest, the best way to radicalize people is to make them fear they are being oppressed. ISIL drives up terror attacks, sold as freedom fighting to their people, which result on people turning against Islam as a whole, which is their publicly stated goal, and when that happens it makes it easier to recruit more and more people to their cause. So Radicalized Christian Terror groups like this are using the same tactics, by forcing situations where they are put down by force. Great recruitment tool, and the brain dead follow lock step into falling for it. ISIL is the bad guy (and they are, no question) and they are the good guy for doing the exact same thing? They are both evil. Both misdirected. Both missing the point we are all in this together. One world. One humanity.

I wish the so called Left Liberal Media would stop calling them militants and start using the term Radicalized Christian Terrorist as that is more apt. Of course they still call Vaccine Deniers and Climate Change Deniers, Skeptics, which they aren't. So no hope for America anytime soon.

Shouldn't there be a circle outside the fundamentalist circle? I'd think the way she's talking she's outside that circle too. The sheer numbers in all the discussed circles is certainly something to be weary of, and I agree the issue needs to be addressed more by those outside the fundamentalist circle.

The same circles can be applied to Christians as well. The inner circle includes people like that guy who killed those at the Planned Parenthood. The next Islamist circle would be mostly the Tea Party type Christians, those that want to force one type of Christian view on others via political action. The Fundamentalist include fundamentalist Christians, those that think gay marriage is a sin and should be outlawed. Now beyond that inner circle, most of Christianity has outgrown it's radical violent past... though their support of the death penalty and stand your ground and murder somebody for stealing your TV sort of suggests they haven't... They criticize Muslim support for chopping off hands of thieves as barbaric, but believe in stand your ground for theft... And those in the fundamentalist circle and further to the center are the ones who do all the speaking for Christianity. There was no outpouring from Christians after the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack about how he doesn't represent Christianity. There is no mass outpouring from the majority of Christians who have no issue with gay marriage to stand up for those who sin differently than them, instead letting the fundamentalist rule the show and present their views as the dominant Christian view, which appears to be that it is worth judging homosexuality as a far worse sin than the ones that they committing... The same arguments she's making for the moderate Muslims to be standing up against fundamentalist to Jihadist Muslims should be applied to Christians as well... no, they radicalized Christians generally aren't as big a threat in terms of violence, but the growing public image of Christians as being bigoted, self-righteous, feeling repressed demigods is a real problem for Christianity as well, and is in large part to blame for its shrinking numbers.

Violence and war against Islam though helps grow the radical elements. As much as Christians love to play the "help help we're being opposed" card, Muslims are increasingly more able to play that card with legit purpose. Trump's call to stop them all from even visiting the US, to register all US Muslims into a database and track them is an open invitation to radicalize more, to move more of them from moderate to fundamentalist and to move fundamentalist towards jihadist... and if it was just one radical idiot like Trump that would be one thing, but he has a huge swath of support, which makes it again easier to radicalize more as they can point out that their faith is under a real and legit attack... which proves their faith is the one true faith as the enemy is working so hard to attack it... this is an argument made by Christians all the time with the we are being oppressed cries, that prove that Christianity is the one true faith, because the devil is working so hard to push Christianity down, yet they don't recognize their attempts to push Islam down proves the exact same point to the Muslims...

I think they all show that religion does far more harm than good.

Capitalist totalitarianism is a term I'll have to remember, nice.

Being China, the exploitative companies and the repressive regimes are the same people, are they not? Even Hong Kong is no longer free of total government control, is it? I was under the impression that everything is 'owned' by the state in China, although some entities are given more autonomy than others to give an illusion of capitalism.

Oh I'm fully cognisant of the nature of the system, but it's telling that it originates from an entertainment company and a retailer rather than the Chinese gov...

It's capitalist totalitarianism. Using your customers as your advertising/enforcement, and as you said, playing on peoples selfishness. A viral promotion of obedience and conformity (because viral marketing started in China right? \= )

One of the most repressive regimes on the planet got schooled on invasive social engineering for better control by a couple of exploitative companies. Speaks volumes.

Nice medley, but I always lose my suspension of disbelief when a WW2 era performance includes an inter-racial couple. It just stands out as something you wouldn't see back then, just like if someone just pulled out their cell phone and started texting. Just because it's a part of our history we aren't proud of is no reason to white wash over it, in fact I feel it's all the more reason to remember how we were back then, so we don't go backwards, and to help keep in mind that, as repressed as we are as a society, we've come a long way, baby.

I always thjought america had a schizophrenic relationship with sex. I think it's a quote from Jack Nicholson that goes something like this: 'Show a nipple and your movie get's a R, cut a breast off with a sword and it get's a PG'
There a few countries with such a giant adult entertainment industry and at the same time abstinence only sex education.

Repressed sexuality is never a good thing.

Because access to guns is a lot more difficult. That's the second part to this problem.

I do think he's unto something. I have thought about it myself. Terrorists and mass-shooters all seem like pathetic little shit who are completely sexually repressed and/or sexually frustrated.

@Asmo

Don't really want to get a more general argument about the history of US foreign policy, I was talking more about the present day. The US's rationale for intervention during the Cold War was an exaggerated sense of the spread of communism and later to prevent anything that might precipitate an oil price spike like in the 1973-74/79. Nowadays with greatly expanded US shale oil supply and no Cold War I simply don't see any real incentive, if anything with the furore over debt, quite the opposite.

@enoch

Successful US intervention in the previous century generally involved large sums of money, whether it be propping up a government (Zaire/Congo) or funding an insurgent militia (Guatemala). Same thing with the USSR (North Korea). The ability to influence public opinion or mount credible propaganda campaigns in my opinion is generally exaggerated especially in a large, modern and educated country like Iran. It's also the conspiratorial myth that repressive regimes (like Iran, Russia) frequently turn to when they need to discredit dissent. A good example is:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/11/arab-conspiracy-theories

I mention Russia because this is the line pushed aggressively to both his domestic audience by it's wholly state controlled television media and to a mix of foreign and expatriate audiences (of which Russia Today is most successful) through a web of shadowy funding and home grown sounding organisations (see link below for a nice overview, e.g. http://www.globalresearch.ca/). It's pretty important to view what he says as part of a narrative to vastly exaggerate US and western intervention in Ukraine and previously Georgia, because that allows him to construct his myth of being a counterbalance to present day western imperialism.

https://criticusnixalsverdruss.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/propagramm3.jpg

I think that's a valid interpretation of what he meant to ask ("Are celebrities repressed about their sexuality?"), but it's still a stupid question.

What are Tom's possible answers? A) Yes, I believe celebrities find it hard to talk about their sexuality. B) No, I believe that no celebrities find it hard to talk about their sexuality.

Nonsense. Meaningless.

It's not the real question he means to ask. What he seems to really want to ask is the loaded question: "Do you find it hard to admit you're gay?"

"Tom...do you believe that sexual repression still exists for some artists, especially celebrates that are expected to perform manly roles? You yourself seemed vague before."

Everyone else.

"Keep your sexuality private."

Pretty much sums this up.