more tangents

this one from an article in sunday's new york times entitled Iraq's Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory.

the tangents go something like this:

is this article fairly convincing that we should leave iraq? i would argue that... arguably, it is (although 1 or 2 hesitations in referencing this article for the potential that (what i would argue) could be a misreading that, either, iraqi groups are "barbarians" or that, if they are, that they are really so different from other individuals or groups (past or present) with "enemies."). (another hesitation... (this one about my "arguable argument")... is that 1 article makes not a definitive position statement... but hence all of the "arguable" qualifiers i suppose).

the article (if i've got it right) goes something like this: the u.s. opened the floodgates but that does not mean it is going to be able to (or is necessarily being asked to) close them. the floodgates being the civil strife among the ethnic groups who are seemingly determined to duke it out and are simply biding their time for the real fight once the u.s. leaves... and that even the (self-proclaimed) moderate Sheik interviewed for the article concedes (or is it a concession?) that iraq needs "a strong dictator" (i.e. not a democratic government) because, well, when you have gripes going back to the 7th century, and the perfect storm presents itself, it's not going to go away until someone (i.e. a "strong" dictator...i.e. not a democratic government) quells it.

tangent 1: thinking of places like nigeria and how borders sometimes serve only to pen-up groups who would otherwise never choose to be pent up together = oh so many issues.

tangent 2: thinking of this quote in the article: "That sense of [Sunni] entitlement is fed by the notion that Iraq's Shiite Arabs are just proxies for Iran's Persian rulers." Is it possible to make (broad) analogies to the dominant (or shall we just say it... white) group in the u.s. and non-dominant (i.e. non-white) groups in the u.s.?

tangent 3: death penalty, justice, retribution... a discussion over caesar salad about this article got us talking about saddam's execution which got us thinking, "man... it's so weird, it seemed to have happened so quickly yet with a strange anti-climax, and yet, thinking about it now, it's just...so...weird..." him being the only world ruler whose execution we can think of (from our own lifetime) which got so much attention... and how maybe he was executed for being the ruler of an army in (subtle?) civil strife who made orders to his army to do a bunch of bad things which, arguably... depending on your take on the death penalty and etc... deserved death, but contrasting (or is it comparing) it to other (unnamed) "rulers" of armies in (not-so-subtle) foreign strife/war/occupation making orders to their armies to do a bunch of... well anyway....

tangent 3.5: death penalty, justice, retribution... (pre(r)amble: my thoughts on this usually go the other way... sorry but true... based in many ways on a course on 'sentencing and corrections' where we spent many hours pondering what sentencing's (e.g. jail/prison sentencing's) purpose is... and i've come to the (granted, mutable) theory that it should not or cannot be for retribution... not so much at least... or... maybe... retribution for whom... the victim, the victim's family/friends, the state?)... anyway, back to the tangent... and thinking about the book i'm reading now-- Native Son by Richard Wright (which i haven't finished, so don't give away the end) and about what happens when there are consequences for the perpetrator of two crimes... but when the consequences would be the same whether or not the perpetrator had committed the second crime... because, for whatever reason crime #1 was the one that mattered (in this case... the victim of crime #1 was much more important to the dominant group)... and thinking (finally, from the flip side), if it is about retribution... does it matter to victim 2 that perpetrator was punished for crime 1? arguably no... and well... what a waste for victim 2... because for one, their victimization was seemingly purposeless (though not maybe from the perpetrator's standpoint, depending on the motive) and two, from the perpetrator's standpoint (and obviously taking no moral considerations into consideration)... why not victimize victim 2... because it's not going to result in additional penalties (again, not thinking about "higher" justice) which could get us onto tangent 4... 'how much 'morality' does the u.s. system of justice have' (or... 'should sentencing be about retribution and if so, what about the unprosecuted victimization of victim 2'?)... but it's late, and i have to be at work in the morning and so do you (if you're not there already).