How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Bush bashing & warmongering   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Bush bashing & warmongering

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


75 posted 03-12-2003 08:02 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Resorting to name calling? And you are telling me to grow up?  Laughable!


Yep, you're right. I took it personally. I still do. You do have a way to push my buttons, ya know.

But my point stands. If you are right, then America is wrong. You have turned the great experiment (as America is sometimes called) into a border dispute.

You, bigger than me? I doubt it. But I bet my dad can beat your dad.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


76 posted 03-12-2003 09:23 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

I dunno... I know a lot of Americans who started that Bush/Iraq countdown too...

(hopefully I won't be accused of Bush-hating here- I'm not trying to make an argument, I'm just recalling an observation I made a couple years ago...)
Sudhir Iyer
Member Rara Avis
since 04-26-2000
Posts 7206
Mumbai, India : now in Belgium


77 posted 03-13-2003 06:31 AM       View Profile for Sudhir Iyer   Email Sudhir Iyer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Sudhir Iyer

Michael, O Sir Balladeer,
I always have had high respects for you too; and that will remain no matter what happens in this politically charged atmosphere.

I have been working in Belgium since  March 1999. I usually go out on weeekends to pubs, taverns, restaurants etc. with quite a mixed group of europeans (east, west, central etc...). It is perhaps my way of getting to know the pulse of the place I am living in. The people who I meet are thos who work at the EU Council, EU embassies, EU missions, colleagues from the IT world, locals from various areas of Belgium, friends from UK, etc.

I remember there used be huge discussions even here when the results of US elections were being declared. There used to be debates why Al Gore should have made it. Most agreed that he lacked the charisma to be the President of the most powerful nation of the world (financially and arms/ammo/defence/military wise); but on the other hand most of the people who talked to me about this had a fear of when would Bush re-ignite the Iraq issue and how it could lead to the situation we are in today.

I should have said 'most Europeans who talked to me'. That would have avoided this post, I suppose.

Anyway, during those days, I had maintained that Bush might not do it; but I think I am being proved wrong; very wrong.

Well...

Regards,
Sudhir

[This message has been edited by Sudhir Iyer (03-13-2003 06:33 AM).]

Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


78 posted 03-13-2003 09:30 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"You, bigger than me? I doubt it."

~ I don't. I have a pic of mine. I'll send my pic and you send yours to, as of now, an undesignated Piptalk forum member, they can  then judge which one of us is bigger. Deal?

"But I bet my dad can beat your dad."

~ Probably so, my dad just had his knee replaced and he is getting up there in years.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (03-13-2003 09:30 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


79 posted 03-13-2003 04:58 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Well, now that we have that settled.

But before I was so taken by your opinions concerning expatriates, the question I was going to address is this:

quote:
"If someone disagrees with Bush, they are liberals disabusing their freedoms or just being snide. The inference is that *real* Americans would never do such a thing.

But the very same writer turns around and accuses another President of treason. And then, "I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration."

~ Non-sequitur. You are mixing two issue together. Clinton did sell various technologies to our enemies, but the writer didn't "bash" him with idiotic and pure emotional dribble derived from unfounded half-cocked opinions appearing as concrete facts, such as many liberals who oppose the war have "bashed" the president.


First, I am not sure what this means. I can certainly say that taken at face value, this is false. I am positive that Clinton did not personally sell technology to Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or Al Queda. There was some question as to relaxing technological requirments with trade to China. Is that what this refers to?

If so, isn't that a non-sequitur? If Clinton did relax technological requirments, then it doesn't follow that 'he sold weapons to our enemies'.

Or, if you accept that, how do you deal with Dubya's deals with the Taliban, the Reagan administration's support of Hussein in the eighties, and the Iran-contra debacle.

There is, after all, a connection, isn't there.

Second, these phrases are not statements of facts, they are intended to do something (like show the moral self-righteousness of the author). Facts in and of themselves do nothing, facts can be useful but only if they are relevant to what you want to do. And relevance/significance is exactly what we're talking about.

While it's true that the left plays poltics, the point is that so does the right. The point is that saying things like, we use facts, we use objectivity are playing politics.  

As Sudhir and Hush both point out it is no secret that Dubya has something personal in all of this, "After all, he did try to kill my dad." That's a fact. How relevant is it? A few months ago, it's the only thing I could think of that explained this sudden shift to Iraq, "Why Iraq, why now?"

I don't believe that anymore, but it makes no sense to criticize others for not listening to the facts when what you mean by that has to be significant facts and that is political. I've already pointed out the personal factor (even the appearance of conflict of interest is enough to recuse a judge, is it not?). But a sophisticated argument can be made that Bush is playing geo-politics in precisely the way that France, Germany, and Russia are playing (They have an agenda as Michael said), and, yes, it does involve oil (the facts are there if one looks at certain recent business contracts with Iraq and Russia for example.).

But you dismiss these facts as propaganda. Fair enough, I also agree that these things are probably not the overriding reason, but if Dubya hasn't even considered them, then I would say he's not being a good president. Facts aren't the issue here, politics are, geo-political advantage is.

Interestingly enough, your own rhetorical style mimics the Bush administration. You don't try to persuade others, you dismiss anybody who disagrees with you as not being logical or factual, as being emotional or deluded. But what you miss is that this situation is not scientific, it is political, the point is to get as many people on your side as possible so that you can do what you want to do, not test for the speed of gravity. As a result, you are attempting a political play by relying on the 'trust' of words like facts and logic.

Is it working? As far as I can tell, the only people who agree with your heavyhandedness are people who already agree with you. You didn't need to talk to them. Is it working for the Bush administration?

No. Why do I think so? Because, well, it's not working. Working here is defined by getting other people to do what you want them to do, not by being right about the facts.

So:
quote:
If you can't see the difference, then it is because your mind prevents you from seeing.


Or you know exactly what you're doing and laughing all the way through. I admit this is a possibility. But one would think you could do it a little better than this.

--------------------------------

Nevertheless, on one point, I heartily agree with you and the author:

quote:
And the media quips qouted are also facts.


I remember those, they were disgusting and an embarrassment.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


80 posted 03-13-2003 11:25 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Politics is, after all, argumentum ad populum.

Not too shabby Brad.

I would have pointed out though that the right accused Clinton of trying to sweep Monica Lewinski out of the headlines when he bombed Kosovo, without a security council endorsement by the way.

I didn't see any leftist protests then...

I'm beginning to wonder if ideolgy is even about ideology anymore or people just think Republicans and Democrats are races they are born into.
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


81 posted 03-14-2003 08:32 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"Well, now that we have that settled."

~ It was? And I thought you were taking the time between posts to get a pic ready.


Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


82 posted 03-14-2003 08:52 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Let me KISS. What did I mean by non-sequitur?

1. This quote was made: "If someone disagrees with Bush, they are liberals disabusing their freedoms or just being snide."

~ Forget about the rest stated, like what constitutes being a real American, that is another issue.

2. This quote was made: "But the very same writer turns around and accuses another President of treason."

~ Let's stop right there. One can only reach point C through points A & B.

This is what I stated....

Non-sequitur. You are mixing two issue together. Clinton did sell (insert - of course not directly) various technologies to our enemies, but the writer didn't "bash" him with idiotic and pure emotional dribble derived from unfounded half-cocked opinions appearing as concrete facts, such as many liberals who oppose the war have "bashed" the president.



Balladeer's quoted letter did not "bash" Clinton with such personal attacks such as: Clinton was stupid. Clinton was a warmonger. Clinton was acting for his daddy's wishes, etc, etc. The letter only presented facts about the Clinton administration and the media. The letter was formulated based on what the reader knows to be true, and does not resort to any type of personal "bashing."  

I interpret it this way, as I have already stated previously....

1. Many more liberals opposed to war with Iraq (from my experience, which makes it fact to me and to any others who open their minds to objectivity) call Bush every name in the book and attack the man (ad hominem) and not the issue - cases presented on either side of the argument, while...

2. Those who are in favor of, or at the very least believe that war with Iraq is the lesser of the two evils and war itself, is not necessarily wrong or right, but a judgement call, do not bash Bush, do not base their judgments on bashing liberals, but argue the issue based on the facts and opinions presented, keeping their decisions based on objectivity, not subjective emotional opinions about what one thinks of one particular man, Bush or the party he represents - Republicans.

The letter presented by Balladeer is in complete alignment with my ascertation given.

Bush bashing v. presented facts of what Clinton was responsible for = non-sequitur.

Accusations of treason v. disagreement on Bush's stance on war with Iraq = non-sequitur.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (03-14-2003 09:18 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


83 posted 03-14-2003 04:50 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Wow, this is a big concession:

quote:
Those who are in favor of, or at the very least believe that war with Iraq is the lesser of the two evils and war itself, is not necessarily wrong or right, but a judgement call, do not bash Bush, do not base their judgments on bashing liberals, but argue the issue based on the facts and opinions presented, keeping their decisions based on objectivity, not subjective emotional opinions about what one thinks of one particular man, Bush or the party he represents - Republicans.


Though hard to read. But you do seem to admit that it is a judgement call and not an inevitable conclusion from the facts alone.

That is not what you said before.

Nevertheless, you continue to see facts where I see assertions. You admit that the statements concerning Clinton as written are false. Yet, you offer no further evidence. Again, the statement made is that Clinton sold Islamic terrorists high-tech  communication equipment. You add indirectly, but this isn't much of an addition.  We can define Islamic terrorists pretty clearly these days, but even indirectly still implies that Clinton personally profited by such an action. Could you please explain why this is a fact?

Or at least tell me specifically what you think happened.  

As of now, I see no difference between this assertion and the empty slogan, "No blood for oil."

It's easy to see why you and those chanting on the opposite side don't get into specifics. It spoils the fun of posturing. Even cursory research usually deflates moral posturing and makes you think twice. That's why I like it.

Now, given all this, you admonish those who disagree -- leftists, liberals, whatever -- as somehow being more emotional than those who agree with you or who you agree with. But it doesn't seem to occur to you that you might think they're more rational because you agree with them? Why not drop the whole facade and just try to persuade others that you are right. We all do that, but at least that implies a healthy recognition that you could be wrong.

---------------------
A quick aside, I'm pretty much arguing the same way to a leftist who feels that why getting rid of Hussein is justified (How could it not be justified from a leftist point of view?), but that America isn't the country to be trusted with this responsibility. When I press him on this, he falls just as curiously short of facts as you do.

But he uses the word "facts" in much the same way you do. This isn't surprising (with the exception that he's arguing at a philosophy forums). The way "facts" are used today is the  philosophical residue of a failed philosophical mission, the logical positivists. Their emphasis on the fact/value dichotomy eventually exploded in their faces. This is not post-modern 'baloney' but the views of such respected figures as Quine, Sellars, Karl Popper, Wittgenstein, Putnam and others and it began in the 1950's in America, in the hard edged, steely gazed eyes of Anglo-American analytic philosophy, not in the irresponsibly rhetorical and crazily glazed eyes of France.  
--------------------------
At the risk of being jumped on as a liberal and a leftist (I am, but apparently that doesn't mean the same thing to most people as it does to me.), I'm going to try to show you facts that back up certain frivolous statements made by Bush detractors:

You said:

quote:
Clinton was stupid. Clinton was a warmonger. Clinton was acting for his daddy's wishes, etc, etc.


I assume you mean that all we need to do is replace Bush for Clinton so that's what I'm going to do.

Bush was stupid.

Bush ran on a ticket that pictured him as a non-intellectual, he has repeatedly shown that he is incompetent in extraneous speaking, and his lack of knowledge in international affairs (anybody remember the five leader question?) are all facts.

Is he stupid? Well, I've called him stupid on a number of occasions. But I mean the actions taken, not the man himself (I'd probably like the guy if I met him over a beer. I think I'd like Clinton too.). Diplomacy and international relations are not a 'this is the way it is' policy. It doesn't matter if you are on the right side in diplomacy. Bush, for some reason, fails to see that.

Can you make a case based on facts? Yes, you can.

Bush is a war monger.

Two wars in two years. Is he a war monger? I've never said this of him, but a case can be made based on the facts. But let's make a prediction: if he is a war monger, he will attempt one more war next year -- depending on how Iraq turns out.

Bush was acting for his daddy's wishes.

I don't see you denying, "After all, he tried to kill my dad." There is at least an apparent conflict of interet here. A case can be made based on the facts.

Personal opinion: his dad pulled out of Iraq. It's people disagreeing with daddy that Dubya is listening to now. I wish he'd listen to his dad more often.  

Simply put, the accusations against Clinton in that letter are no better supported than the above statements I've made here.

---------------------

Two more quick points:

It was a republican (Nixon) who took us out of Vietnam. Did he stick to his guns or pander to the masses?

It was a republican who instituted the strategy of surgical strikes (Kissinger) or what is now called 'pinpricks'.

I wouldn't have mentioned these except that the guy brought up Vietnam -- he seems to have forgotten who was the president then.

If you're going to posture, be careful using history, it has a way of slapping you in the face. She is a fickle, fickle mistress.

    

[This message has been edited by Brad (03-14-2003 06:24 PM).]

JP
Senior Member
since 05-25-99
Posts 1391
Loomis, CA


84 posted 03-14-2003 09:17 PM       View Profile for JP   Email JP   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit JP's Home Page   View IP for JP

Brad, not a lot of room to argue with you here, you have a way a wending logic into an inextricable web...

Can't say that you are right or wrong in all that you say, can only tell you that my gut feeling says that you are off the mark somehow.

Nixon pulled us out of Vietnam, but who put us in and why?  The end of that who debacle should not be seperated from the whole to make a point (a fallacy of logic by taking events or statements out of context).

Surgical strikes in the context of the whole (in a war) are vital and useful tactics.  By themselves in the context of retaliation, they serve little purpose but to give the impression of 'taking action'.  That is, of course, if they do not complete a mission or perform a badly needed function - let's say... a surgical strike in Bagdad which eliminates Saddam and Osama while they enjoy coffee together - THAT would be taking action as opposed to pandering....

As I said, I can't really argue your points (I'm no where near as intelligent as you are), but I can intuit that there is something amiss.


Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn.
Nil Desperandum, Fata viem invenient

[This message has been edited by JP (03-14-2003 09:20 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


85 posted 03-14-2003 10:44 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

JP,

Your intuitions are correct. I make no compelling case against the war. I have no such case. As Opeth said, it's a judgement call.


hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


86 posted 03-14-2003 11:24 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Okay, I'm really not happy because I lost a really long reply in a server error, so here's a recap.

Opeth:

'1. Many more liberals opposed to war with Iraq (from my experience, which makes it fact to me and to any others who open their minds to objectivity) call Bush every name in the book and attack the man (ad hominem) and not the issue - cases presented on either side of the argument, while...'

More specifically:

'(from my experience, which makes it fact to me and to any others who open their minds to objectivity)'

Don't you think this is a very illogical line of reasoning? Doesn't the phrase 'fact to me' completely contradict your stance on objectivity? Isn't personal experience the main basis for subjectivity?

I don't argue for pure objectivity. I think it's impossible and probably not desireable.

Obviously, you don't argue for it either. That's what I've obvserved... it's fact to me.
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


87 posted 03-15-2003 09:22 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"Don't you think this is a very illogical line of reasoning? Doesn't the phrase 'fact to me' completely contradict your stance on objectivity?"

~ No. Why? Because if any person witnessed what I have personally witnessed were to utilize objectivity, embrace logic, while shunning personal biases and political loyalties, they would have reached the same (edited: or similiar) conclusion that I have reached.

"Isn't personal experience the main basis for subjectivity?"

~ Not always. For example, two people could watch the same political speech and therefore share the same experience of watching that speech, yet one could be full of bias, subjectiveness, hatred for the indidividual giving the speech, etc., while the other person listens to the speech with an open-mind, without any loyalty, without favoring or not favoring the speech giver, objective minded, no biases, and both of these people will come to different conclusion. Therefore, the main basis for subjectivity is within the person themself, not the sharing of an experience.

"I don't argue for pure objectivity. I think it's impossible and probably not desireable."

~ I think "pure" anything is virtually impossible. However, one would be amazed how much better one could reach a decision, arrive at a conclusion, etc., if one knows how to think critically, which helps shed personal biases, subjectivity, emotional decision making, etc.

The Interent form of communication is a wonderous communication process, indeed.  It is so easy for the participants to get side-tracked, to take what is written out of context, to lose the path of the topic matter, etc.

I never said I was pro-war. In fact, I would rather us not go to war with Iraq. However, I can understand the reasoning behind either decision, and neither decision may be the correct one. History will decide.

I have tried to keep issues separate, but others cannot do the same. And when others do not do the same, it creates a inextricable web of confusion among those replying. The line of the circle continues to go around and around.

     

[This message has been edited by Opeth (03-15-2003 10:00 AM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


88 posted 03-15-2003 11:10 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Opeth...

(by the way, as I'm waiting for the topic review to load, is it just my computer that's slow, or pip as a whole? Other sites haven't been quite this laborious for me...)

Anyway...

'Because if any person witnessed what I have personally witnessed'

Isn't this the whole point though? Have I witnessed what you've witnessed? And vice-versa, have you witnessed what I've witnessed? Aside from certain aspects of the media, I think we may have had some differing life experiences. Objectivity becomes irrelevant... we can't all experience the lives of each other, therefore universal truths based on individual experiences are impossible to achieve.

'~ Not always. For example, two people could watch the same political speech and therefore share the same experience of watching that speech'

Well, actually, I doubt that. Even two people in the same room together will have different perceptual thresholds to certain sensory input... but I don't think that's alltogether entirely significant. What is significant is that if I'm watching the speech with subtitles in a crowded bar, you're watching the speech in an otherwise quiet room in your own home, if my mother is watching the speech from a hospital bed in physically and psychologically uncomfortable surroundings; if my father is watching it on a 42-inch hi-tech plasma screen and my aunt is watching it on a 15-inch black-and-white with ba reception; if my pregnant neighbor is watching it and she feels her baby kick, if my friend is watching it with a sore throat...

I could go on, but do you see my point? Environmental factors will influence our individual viewing of the speech.

'yet one could be full of bias'

I don't think anybody is devoid of bias.

But to address this more fairly, some people freak out when their biases are challenged, which may lead to the hatred you mentioned, or an unwillingness to listen.

I personally don't like speeches, because I don't have time to think about or discuss one point before the person uses it as a building block for his/her next point. Additionally, I'm a poor auditory learner and I usually have to read something before it will stick. I, therefore, have a bias against speeches... but I'll listen to one in what I believe to be an open manner... I think trying to overcome biases is much more important that trying to prove that you have none... because people who can't admit their biases aren't being honest with themselves.

'It is so easy for the participants to get side-tracked, to take what is written out of context, to lose the path of the topic matter, etc.'

I don't know that getting sidetracked is such a bad thing... isn't it important to evaluate the basis upon which someone is making a point?

'I never said I was pro-war. In fact, I would rather us not go to war with Iraq.'

Neither did I, but you could've fooled me.

'I have tried to keep issues separate, but others cannot do the same.'

*shrug* Sorry... I saw an inconsistency and pointed it out. I don't really think I'm getting too far off topic- isn't a main topic in this thread the issue of facts, whether they can be used effectively to make a case for the war, and whether or not they are, indeed, facts?

I'm not well enough equipped with a wide enough range of information here to argue one way or another for or against certain 'facts,' but I don't think that should stop me from questioning them.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


89 posted 03-16-2003 12:34 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I'm not well enough equipped with a wide enough range of information here to argue one way or another for or against certain 'facts,' but I don't think that should stop me from questioning them.  


-But shouldn't questioning them include arming yourself with information?  Else -- how does one ever make up one's mind?
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


90 posted 03-16-2003 10:38 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"Though hard to read."

~ Yep. I'll give you that one. Sometimes my mind can't keep up with fingers or vice versa.

"But you do seem to admit that it is a judgement call and not an inevitable conclusion from the facts alone.

That is not what you said before."


~ Yes it is. You, once again, are mixing different issues together, which leads to an erroneous conclusion.

Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


91 posted 03-16-2003 10:46 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"*shrug* Sorry... I saw an inconsistency and pointed it out. I don't really think I'm getting too far off topic- isn't a main topic in this thread the issue of facts, whether they can be used effectively to make a case for the war, and whether or not they are, indeed, facts?"

~ See how this form of communication (Internet) is flawed? The statement you commented on was not directed towards your pointing out an inconsistency. If we were to talk face-to-face, I think we would better understand each other's points of view on this matter - tremendously.
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


92 posted 03-16-2003 10:59 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

'It is so easy for the participants to get side-tracked, to take what is written out of context, to lose the path of the topic matter, etc.'

"I don't know that getting sidetracked is such a bad thing... isn't it important to evaluate the basis upon which someone is making a point?"

~ I believe the focus is lost and the conclusions one arrives to are in error when issues are mixed and not settled in a step-by-step logical order - and this is what normally happens when "sidetracking" occurs. I have seen this happen in all types of discussions, however in religious and political discussions, it happens at its very worst.

Take the issue: To war or not to war with Iraq...other issues need to be discussed and agreed or disagreed upon prior to reaching a logical/educated opinion.  Issues such as:

1. Understanding the UN resolutions opposed on Iraq.

2. Understanding the purpose of the UN resolutions, including the consequences if Iraq does not comply.

3. Has Iraq disarmed as they agreed to after their defeat in Desert Storm.

4. Is there any evidence that Iraqi government is supporting terrorist organizations.

This list is not all conclusive, but in critical thinking, each one of these and other issues need to be analyzed before a logical and educated opinion could be rendered on whether or not the US should or should not war with Iraq.

Now witht that being said, it must be noted that any fallacy in psuedoreasoning should be recognized and dismissed.

Now, if the above critical approach to the war issue was utilized by people rendering their opinion would there still be differences in opinions? Of course! But, at least everyone would state their opinions backed by sound reasoning as to why or why not they believe what they believe.

Sadly. many, many, Americans base their opinions not on the above stated format, but out of emotion, loyalties, worldviews, biases, subjectivism, peer - pressure, ad hominems ( I am already including certain fallacies of psuedoreasonings).

This is what I am talking about!  

  

[This message has been edited by Opeth (03-16-2003 11:00 AM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


93 posted 03-16-2003 10:59 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Rebel-

Never said I wasn't working on it...
Brad Majors
Deputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 04-03-2001
Posts 2735
Georgia


94 posted 03-18-2003 05:34 PM       View Profile for Brad Majors   Email Brad Majors   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad Majors

I know I'll probably say what has been said but I want to add my won two cents to the fire. I am a republican but I question the validity of Bush's descion.  I feel personally that more attention should be give top North Korea where the danger is much greater. Bush unfornately has alienated alot of people through his axis of evil ideas. If this goes well do we have conflicts with north korea or Iran (all in the axis of evil). I understand that Saddam has shown his contempt for the UN and the US by his deception but are we going to put puppet governments all over the world? Will we not add more fuel to the fire of terroism for years to come in the process of trying to end it? The foreign relation spiral will be felt for years and years to come. In 20 years will we look back and know it was right or will as alot of people view vietnam wonder why we were there in the first place. As it become invitable we need to support our soldiers and government wether we agree or not.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


95 posted 12-12-2003 02:16 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



I thought I'd bump this back up as I am curious to hear your "post-war" thoughts regarding the same issue, wondering how firm they remain or how they may have changed.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Laicie
Junior Member
since 12-03-2003
Posts 40
Australia


96 posted 12-12-2003 04:17 AM       View Profile for Laicie   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Laicie

I am ignorant to a lot of facts and fiction when it comes to politics (frankly, I wouldn't be a politician if you put a gun to my head!)but I always thought growing up, we could believe in our government. Now I know, at least from the media (who else is there to receive information from concerning the big G?)that John Howard really does kiss butt!

'I understand that Saddam has shown his contempt for the UN and the US by his deception but are we going to put puppet governments all over the world?'Brad M.

We in Oz, have a puppet government. I'm not saying that I disagree with sending our troops to help American soldiers, it's not the soldiers that are at fault. But it is the governments of both parties that go against the wishes of the people that elect them. Saying that, I also concede that they know...ooh I don't know..maybe 95% more than we, the 'ordinary' person does about the matter, whether we like it or not.
I saw on the news last night, I think the number was 196 soldiers have died AFTER Iraq was 'liberated.' Who are they trying to kid? It'll take many more years yet before they are truly ready to accept their rights and be liberated.The majority of people don't want 'help'. They didn't ask for it.The majority are used to their way of life, and won't accept change so readily. Their government sought it out, and they got what they asked for.They obviously didn't know it would be at such a high price though.
One question:What do THEY know that we don't?
$64,000...going...going...gone.
P.S. Bush bashing is not America bashing, BTW.
Bash John Howard, I won't think you hate Oz, just the fool who runs the country!


Those who love deeply Never grow old;
They may die of old age,But they die young.

Sir Arthur Wing Pinero


[This message has been edited by Laicie (12-12-2003 04:24 AM).]

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


97 posted 12-12-2003 02:58 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

"We in Oz, have a puppet government. I'm not saying that I disagree with sending our troops to help American soldiers, it's not the soldiers that are at fault. But it is the governments of both parties that go against the wishes of the people that elect them. Saying that, I also concede that they know...ooh I don't know..maybe 95% more than we, the 'ordinary' person does about the matter, whether we like it or not.
I saw on the news last night, I think the number was 196 soldiers have died AFTER Iraq was 'liberated.' Who are they trying to kid? It'll take many more years yet before they are truly ready to accept their rights and be liberated.The majority of people don't want 'help'. They didn't ask for it.The majority are used to their way of life, and won't accept change so readily. Their government sought it out, and they got what they asked for.They obviously didn't know it would be at such a high price though.
One question:What do THEY know that we don't?
$64,000...going...going...gone.
P.S. Bush bashing is not America bashing, BTW.
Bash John Howard, I won't think you hate Oz, just the fool who runs the country!"


I agree with many of your views here. President Bush's presidency as of yet has been the most secretive and unaccountable in our nation's history. So obviously they know a whole heck of a lot more than we do. Not that that has never happened before in any government really, but it is frequent here and is just ridiculous.

And did the Iraqis ever shout for help as a nation? In the crowd, who can say who might have, but they most certainly didn't cry for help as a people. Don't get me wrong, what Saddam Hussein did to his people these twenty-something years is cruel and despicable, and somewhere I read he may have killed 61,000 civilians, but though no children should ever be forced to starve like this as it is inhumane, war is also inhumane especially in this case, and a bunch of wrongs certainly never make a right. I'll tell you something, after U.S commanders forced the shootings of 54 Iraqis, not affiliated with any terrorist faction and were simply resenting the U.S actions, it's only going to fuel the opposition of the Iraqis even more.

Finally, I have to agree infinitely with you that Bush-bashing is NOT anti-Americanism. WE are the PEOPLE, have too many forgotten? And as Opeth said on the Bush's Thanksgiving Visit thread on the pipTalk Lounge, which I absolutely agree with much of what he said on one particular thread that: "Family is family. We are family." there is a part of what he said that I do disagree with heavily.

"We, as a nation, should stand together and back the decision, therefore backing the troops. So, as a navy chief, I stand by my president and am ready to be called upon to do my part in this Iraqian conflict. And all of those who continue to protest and call the president a liar, etc.. they need to shut the hell up."

Well, that's not really being a good brother either to tell one part of this big family to shut up. After all, families have a tendency not to get along at one point or another, though generally having a loving relationship. Is it right for fathers to yell at their children and say, "You shut up about what you think about my president?". No. Families are supposed to settle each others differences in a kind and generous manner, not silence them. And why is it many continue to believe not supporting the decision is not supporting the troops? That is ridiculous. Our troops are not robots being programmed by governmental remote controls, they are simply carrying out (in the most par anyway) their duty in honor and pride of their country, which doesn't automatically mean for the president alone. That also doesn't seem to me like family.

We have to accept the fact that as a family, we can expect to have that bigger older brother that picks on us and tends to push us around (in my case it is Bush). Do I just let him humiliate me for much of my life, only praying he matures and forgives me? No, I have to look him straight in the eye and tell him how I feel and how it hurts me inside deeply yet tell him how much I love him deep down too and that he truly is my brother. That is exactly ehat I'm doing. I do not hate Bush, I do not hate any man, but I pity him deeply and I will continue to protest from my heart, by any means necessaty, hoping soon he can get my attention and the attention of all too who feel picked on, cause only then are we truly family for at least one moment.

What have the humanities throughout history taught us anyway? Well, I can tell you that Antigone, the Decameron, and the Canterbury Tales for instance have something important in common. They all stress the right and virtue of civil disobedience, and this is what I choose to demonstrate. I will keep following my heart and protesting as I wish and I will intend to always, and if you're going to be like family, you will hold respect to me, as I will continue to accept and respect the opposing points of view and arguments.

But if you keep telling me to shut up, so be it. Just know that at least I am holding respect to your opinions and disagreeing politely and that is more virtuous.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

[This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (12-12-2003 03:57 PM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


98 posted 12-13-2003 01:10 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

The more time goes by, the more obvious to me it becomes that it was a farce. And i said that from the beginning.

One comment tho, for those who are whining about having to foot the bill for occupation: They should have damn well thought of that when there was some ridiculous approval rating (like 80%, wasn't it?) for the war. It ain't cheap, and when we decide to go in without the backing of the UN, we should expect to pay for it w/o their backing too.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Bush bashing & warmongering   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors