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
 WMD's and Immediate Threats   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
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

WMD's and Immediate Threats

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


25 posted 05-01-2003 01:41 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Here. Here.
Crazy Eddie
Member
since 09-14-2002
Posts 221


26 posted 05-01-2003 03:51 PM       View Profile for Crazy Eddie   Email Crazy Eddie   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Crazy Eddie

quote:
Let me be plain about our purpose.
Of course there is no doubt that Iraq, the region and the whole world would be better off without Saddam.
They deserve to be led by someone who can abide by international law, not a murderous dictator.
Someone who can bring Iraq back into the international community where it belongs, not languishing as a pariah.
Someone who can make the country rich and successful, not impoverished by Saddam's personal greed.
Someone who can lead a government more representative of the country as a whole, while maintaining absolutely Iraq's territorial integrity.
We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Liberated from Saddam, they could make Iraq prosperous and a force for good in the Middle East.
So the ending of regime would be the cause of regret for no-one other than Saddam.
But our purpose is disarmament. No-one wants military conflict. The whole purpose of putting this before the UN is to demonstrate the united determination of the international community to resolve this in the way it should have been resolved years ago: through a proper process of disarmament under the UN.

Disarmament of all WMD is the demand. One way or another it must be acceded to.

This was the reason why we should go to war, presented consistently by the British Government to the British people. Votes cast in Parliament as to whether Britain should go to war were based upon the information given to MPís by the Government and numerous debates, which were centred around the specific topic of weapons of mass destruction.

The question posed, at least to the British people was almost exclusively tied to WMDís.

Included in the speech from which the above quote is taken, which was delivered in the House of Commons by Tony Blair, was this claim:

ďI am aware, of course, that people are going to have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services. But this is what they are telling me the British Prime Minister and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture they paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative.

Tony Blair now suggests it may take up to twelve months to find the weapons he claimed Saddam could deploy within 45 minutes and many people, including MPís, are questioning the extensive, detailed and authoritative intelligence that he purported to possess.

Strangely Iím not one of them, I still believe he had them but I was always  against the war due to the timing and lack of international support not any one specific reason. I do however believe that it is imperative that WMDís are found, not just the component parts but substantial and plainly usable ordnance. Without such evidence the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the British Government and Tony Blair or the intelligence services lied to MPís and the British people to ensure a positive vote for war.

[This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (05-01-2003 03:54 PM).]

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


27 posted 05-01-2003 04:32 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
This is all becoming so tedious. It is quite clear to me that the 'anti' Bush/Administration/U.S. (fill in preferred category) folks are beyond convincing. So be it.


What exactly are we trying to be convinced of?

By using that 'fill in preferred category', it seems quite clear that it's the other way around. By anti-Bush, a personal dislike for the man or perhaps, I don't know, a belief a lack of respect for his abilities as a leader? (my opinion, yes and no) By anti-administration, a belief that this administration has mishandled international situations badly? (my opinion, yes) By anti-American, a belief that America is fundamentally corrupt, the belly of the beast, the Great Satan, and its leaders morally equivalent to Hussein, Stalin, Hitler, etc.? (my opinion, no.).

If you can't distinguish among these positions, I have no idea of what exactly am I trying to be convinced of.

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

But let's take a look at the Hayworth article:

quote:
If that's not enough, the liberal critics could also consult another interested party ?our troops. In a heartbreaking story in U.S. News and World Report about the tragic death of Pfc. John E. Brown in Iraq, reporter Julian Barnes writes, "Like many soldiers here, Brown said he wasn't really sure what this fight was about when he crossed the border in Iraq. But once he had made it to Baghdad, he said, he understood. He was in Iraq, he explained, to help the people." That attitude came through in countless television interviews we've all seen over the past few weeks with American and British forces in Iraq.


I have no doubt that if any of us who criticized the Bush administration by using the reported words of a dead soldier, we would be excoriated as having no taste. But this quote is a double edged sword, "Brown didn't know why we were going into Iraq before he went." If he didn't, why should I?

quote:
What makes the left's "find WMDs or else" argument even more curious is that for months we were told that the president was constantly changing his rationale for war , going from WMDs to Iraq's link to 9/11 and terrorism to human rights to regime change to introducing democracy into the Arab Middle East and back to WMDs again. The fact is, it was all those reasons, and yet the critics can now remember only one.


That the rational was constantly changing is my criticism of the Bush administration. If it was for all those reasons that we went into Iraq than 1441 and Powell's speech become disingenuous at best.

quote:
Furthermore, British PM Tony Blair continually and persuasively made the case for invading Iraq purely on the grounds of the gruesome and threatening nature of Saddam's regime. Does that imply Bush has explaining to do but Blair doesn't?


To me, it does.

quote:
That U.S. credibility is lost but Britain's isn't?


Why is this so difficult to see? The more reasons you give, the more reasons you have to back up. When someone says it's for all those reasons, that doesn't mean, "If it's not this then this or this," it means, "It's for this and this and this."

What was that summit with the Spanish president?

Why were some of the supporters of the war unaware that they supported the war?

Yeah, the whole thing look ad hoc and poorly planned. Is this supposed to make me feel more confident in this administration?

quote:
That Basra was legitimately liberated but the rest of Iraq wasn't?


Two different questions here, isn't it? What he wants to ask is whether it was wrong to liberate Iraq. He asks instead whether it was legitimate.

In another situation:

Is it wrong to keep a murderer behind bars.

Is it legitimate for a police officer to lie in order to keep a murderer behind bars?

quote:
Even more to the point, the real disagreement with France, Germany, Russia, and the rest at the U.N. was that they all thought Saddam's weapons were the problem while the Bush administration thought Saddam himself was the problem.


This is most certainly true, but why didn't he just stick to his guns through the whole thing?

quote:
So while the threat to U.S. interests from Saddam was never imminent, it was always inevitable.


And it's that point that was always and is the question. Drop the imminent threat, and how good is Bush's case here? How many inevitable threats are out there?

quote:
And let's not forget that WMDs may still be found, if not the actual agents then the facilities to manufacture them, which may be more likely.


Fair enough.

quote:
Indeed, if Saddam had abandoned his WMDs, then why did he not offer any evidence to that effect and save himself an invasion and get the sanctions on his country lifted?


This is just a bit of selective memory. He did, that's what caused the problems. Blix bought it, Bush didn't.

quote:
We knew he was hiding WMDs from inspectors for years. We knew he believed a confrontation with the U.S. was inevitable. And, most important, we knew he would never abandon his quest to obtain nuclear weapons as long as he was in power. Given this knowledge, not taking action would have been a dereliction.


True enough, but that doesn't justify the timing.

quote:
The antiwar critics who want the Bush administration to admit it was wrong about Iraq's WMDs will never admit that they were wrong about their dire predictions of how the war would play out. So their politically motivated attacks have about as much seriousness now as the discredited predictions they made before the war.


Um, who made any dire predictions? Who thought the war would have gone differently? The cheers and dances were questioned (Edward Said said something like this and blamed, of all people, Bernard Lewis. Boy, when someone has an ax to grind . . . . He's been going after Lewis since the 1970's). Certainly, many people were wrong about that (my opinion, I didn't know). Some Arabs hoped that the war would at least show that Arab might is formidable and they were humiliated (though this is a mistake, Arabs weren't humiliated, dictatorships were).

But who thought America was going to lose this war? Sure, there was a lot of second guessing going on during the war, but no one that I can remember expressly stated that Iraq would win.

Perhaps, he's referring to the problem inherent in Iraq itself, its relationship with Iran and Turkey, the inherent inability to predict what's going to happen next?

If so, that hasn't exactly played itself out yet either. Before trumpeting this administration, perhaps we should wait and see what happens?

But then we wouldn't have much to talk about then, would we?  

[This message has been edited by Brad (05-01-2003 04:40 PM).]

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


28 posted 05-01-2003 04:42 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Just read Crazy Eddy's comment, it seems Blair has some explaining to do as well.

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


29 posted 05-01-2003 04:47 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Thinking a bit more about the question Denise posed and reversing it:

What am I trying to convince her of?

Simply put, that there are some real problems with the way this administration does things. That Bush's refreshing sense of telling the truth is not as clear cut as some keep asserting.

And that it doesn't have to be that way.
morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


30 posted 05-01-2003 05:02 PM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

Is it just me or is anyone else bemused at the thought that the idea behind all this debate is to convince somebody about some obscure idea. Some of us were, and still are against the war for a number of reasons. One of those reasons happens to be the fact that we suspected then, and it is now becoming quite obvious that we, including the pro-war faction, were being misled. Denise, if you read Crazy Eddieís last post you will see what I mean. The British Prime Minister based his reasons for taking his country into a war, upon the sole goal of disarming Saddam! He, in fact, made liberating the suffering Iraqis secondary to finding the WMDs. In fairness to him though, at least he made it clear what his reasons were. All we got from Washington was sheer obfuscation.

Balladeer said that we should allow more time for the weapons to be found. Hogwash!! If we had been told that there was a strong suspicion that they were there, I would agree with the call for more time. There was no hint of suspicion. It was declared without even the hint of doubt, that the weapons were there! This certainty must have come from some source and this source must have been unimpeachable enough for countries to go to war on the basis of  the intelligence coming from it. So, now that Iraq is at the mercy of the Coalition, why should it take so much time to find the weapons? Why does there seem to be no clear idea as to where the weapons are, or in truth, if they are even there at all?  Why should we wait? As for the so-called declaration by captured Iraqi officials that the weapons were destroyed before the fall of Iraq, give me a break! Who did they tell this to? When? How verifiable is this information being relayed to us by the same people who gave the UN false documents purporting to be ďevidenceĒ?

Yes, I am cynical about this whole charade/farce. I have to be, given all that has gone before. I am not trying to convince anyone to come over to my way of thinking. I respect your right to have a mind of your own too much for that. If anything I say gives you reason to change your mind about your position, great. If not, its quite ok with me. That is your right. I thought though, that all we were doing here is expressing our views. And let me declare that my comments on the issue of 'convincing' do not mean that I have taken it personally. I just do not understand it.
Crazy Eddie
Member
since 09-14-2002
Posts 221


31 posted 05-01-2003 06:18 PM       View Profile for Crazy Eddie   Email Crazy Eddie   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Crazy Eddie


Brad,

I think the distinction between the clear (although possibly misguided) call to arms of Blair and the multiple reason methodology of Bush is important. It could explain why the British have for the most part avoided the vitriolic rhetoric levelled at the US Administration. Sure if they donít find any WMDís Blair will face some tough questions and may even have to step down but if that happens itíll just look like he was good intentioned guy who just happened to be wrong. Bush has a tougher job facing him, if they donít find any WMDís (or even if they do) heíll face tough questions, if peace and harmony in Iraq doesnít break out soon heíll face tough questions, if anti-American feelings in the country spreads, if a democratic government fails, if Saddam and co. evade capture etc. etc. Bush will face tough questions and nobody will want to believe the answers he gives.

Why was Basra a liberation and Baghdad an occupation?

I think itís all down to perceptions again.

Blair gambled and stuck ,in the main, to WMD probably working on the premise that any other positives were a bonus and any other negatives were unfortunate consequences unrelated to his goal. Heís pushed the point so hard and so passionately that even his detractors admire him for his resolute determination in his belief and the perceived integrity that goes with it. Ė He may be wrong but heís only acting with the best intentions.

Bush gambled on WMDís and then turned to the axis of evil and then to liberation and then to freedom and democracy throwing in a connection to 9/11 for good measure. He looked like a man on a mission looking for a reason while possibly avoiding the real one(s)  (all the reasons people are now suggesting like oil etc.). Bush looks resolute and determined but has lost the perceived integrity that goes with it. Ė He may be right but he obviously has ulterior motives.

The British in Basra are perceived as having good intentions Ė the Americans in Baghdad perceived as having ulterior motives
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


32 posted 05-01-2003 09:06 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Morefiah...thank you for respecting me to have a mind of my own and my right to speak hogwash...ROFL!
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


33 posted 05-01-2003 09:27 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

How can one logically progress from-

  "It is quite clear to me that the 'anti' Bush/Administration/U.S. (fill in preferred category) folks are beyond convincing."

To-

"If you can't distinguish among these positions, I have no idea of what exactly am
I trying to be convinced of."

It seems obvious Denise is not attempting to convince anyone of anything.  She is stating a point. The statement she makes seem to be comprehended simply enough.  She makes her statement apply to all three positions.

I have enough faith in Denise's intellect to believe she can distinguish between the positions.

It seems somewhat condescending to suggest otherwise.

If one says the President of the United States is a liar; his policies are simple-minded and arrogant; or in the alternative, he is simple-minded or arrogant, then I perceive you have went beyond opposing policies but have crossed the line to exposing your animus towards the president.

If the overwhelming majority of American support the president and his policies, then I personally fail to see how that does not reflect on the individuals or country that so strongly support the president and his policies.  

I realize my position is not understood by some and viewed as being illogical.  So be it.  If it be that such statements do not reflect ill-feelings towards the U.S., that fact is accepted in Denise's statement.  

No matter if your oppositon is anti-president, anti-government, or anti-American, she feels the positions are beyond convincing.

How one can arrive at a contrary interpretation requires some sleight of word and redirection of the intent of the statement.

"Before trumpeting this administration, perhaps we should wait and see what happens?"

What happens when you exchange attack for trumpeting?

If weapons of mass destruction are found, which I do not have the answer to the question, then there is an out.  

The actions of the President were wrong, (a consistent and what I find to be a somewhat tedious position), but the results will be praised for ridding Iraq of a sadistic dictator of unthinkable proportions.

I do not find such a position hypocritical.  I would suggest disingenuous.

[This message has been edited by Tim (05-01-2003 09:31 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


34 posted 05-01-2003 09:50 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Brad, I didn't pose a question, I stated a conviction that the 'anti' folks will never be convinced that the U.S. handled the Iraq situation the way it should have been handled, and/or didn't act with ulterior motives. The preferred category comment was just an attempt at sarcasm, like an all-inclusive 'fill in the blank', whatever someone's bashing preference.

Morefiah, discussion is good. Sometimes it's even profitable. My comment was just my expression that discussions like this usually lead nowhere. Neither side will likely be convinced of the other side's persuasions and I am finding it all a bit too tedious, a waste of time and energy. One side perceives ulterior motives and/or bad judgment were involved, the other side perceives what needed to be done was finally done and it doesn't seem likely that there will ever be a meeting of the minds. But, feel free to continue discussing it. Just because I am tired of the subject doesn't mean that you or anyone else is.  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


35 posted 05-01-2003 10:13 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Thanks for the clarification of my point, Tim. I've been under the weather the past couple of days and thought that maybe I was not expressing myself as clearly as I could. It's a relief to know that someone understood what I was saying!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


36 posted 05-01-2003 10:39 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I have to agree, Denise. Nothing is going to be changed because the subjects of these topics are not the real issue. Brad, with all due respect, I doubt this thread has much to do with WMDs. It would be more honest to just say this thread is "I Don't Like Bush - Reason #5 (or 6 or 7 or whatever)". That's what they come down to in reality. Obviously you simply do not like the man. Why? Who knows? Maybe because you think he is cocky or arrogant or short or Texan or who knows what? Maybe because you don't see him as good presidential material. Maybe because he is not as refined and dignified as most politicians are. Whatever the reason you certainly have the right to feel that way but why not just be honest and come out and say that is what these threads are about. WMDs? We haven't found any yet...let's use that as a topic. If WMDs are found, then another thread will appear about some different topic to reflect badly on the man. There are certainly many possibilities. Before Iraq there was "Bush: the Illegal President" which was bull for anyone who read the actual facts of the elections. Other possibilities are "Do we want a president who says 'You're with us or against us' to the world" or "How can a president turn his back on the UN? Is this man fit to run a country?" or "Afghanistan, then Iraq - is Bush a warmonger?" The possibilites are endless. Regardless what the subject title is what they are all saying is "We don't like Bush."  and that's ok. I felt the same way about Clinton. I understand. But all of these bits of reasoning like "we don't like being lied to" or other reasons for verbal attack are just excuses that say the same thing - we don't like Bush. Anything that deviates from that way of thinking is ignored. If Bush has a 70% disapproval rating no doubt you would use that. Since it's the approval rating that is 70% it's not mentioned. Morefiah considers it ridiculous that weapons should not be found in a month since Hussein could launch them in 45 minutes, as if to indicate they must have been kept in his bedroom or somewhere close. These are just other ways to say "I don't like Bush".

   No, these threads won't change anything because it is basically a personal dislike that creates them, one that I do not see changing...and I understand that, too. I cannot think of anything in the world someone could say to me to convince me Clinton was even a marginally acceptable country leader. This thread, the way it is presented, asks a question that no one here can answer, which of couse is known by the originator before beginning the thread....therefore the reason for the thread is not to have an impossible question answered by anyone here, but as an intro into expanding on one's dislike and disappproval of Bush. It would be more honest just to display it for what it is....
morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


37 posted 05-02-2003 10:47 AM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

Denise is right; This is getting tedious. My reasons for saying so are different though. I have never told anyone that I do not like George Bush. I have said that I do not trust him, due only to what I consider to be major flaws in his leadership style. I have said that I believe we were lied to by him and those surrounding him. I have said a number of things which I suppose, could be called unflattering. I can't recall though, ever saying anything which can be categorized as being demonstrative of dislike. But let me say what my feelings are about the man... I have read that he is a devoutly religious man, a christian actually. I like that. I have also read that he favours the death sentence. I do not like that. I am of the opinion that he is strong willed. I like that. My understanding is that he has advocated tax-cuts for the rich. I do not like that. He obviouly has the ability to act rather than to waffle on an issue. I like that. He believes in pre-emptive strikes. I do not like that. He has appointed African-Americans to key cabinet positions. I love that. He (I believe) was not honest about his reasons for going to war with Iraq. I hate that.

I obviously do not know the man. I only know what has been presented to me by way of the media. I have made certain conclusions about his personality and character based on this information. My feelings toward him can only be called wary.

Now hear this: I got my love for arguing from my father. We argue constantly about almost anything. We are always on opposing sides of most issues (He is on my side about the war though, funny enough) and we just go at it. He has many views that I do not like or agree with and also have done many things, including leaving my mother when I was 9 years old, that I do not like and I am always quick to point this out. But I love the man just the same. The point is that I cannot see how expressing dislike for a persons actions automatically means that you dislike that person. That logic somehow just escapes me. I have disagreed with Denise, Balladeer, and I cannot recall who else in the Alley. Does this somehow mean that I dislike them? What utter rubbish. I have also expressed delight in reading Balladeers poetry (still need to get a copy of that book BTW, Balladeer) and though I cannot recall just now, I must have read Denise's poetry as well, and I dare say I'm sure I would enjoy it. Is not at all possible to dislike the policies and actions of a person without disliking the person in question? Tedious!!
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


38 posted 05-02-2003 01:29 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

[removed by me -- not gonna say it -- wouldn't be prudent -- not at this juncture]

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (05-02-2003 01:33 PM).]

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


39 posted 05-02-2003 04:18 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Hedgehogs and foxes.

Tim, Denise, and Balladeer,

If I'm supposed to 'read into' what you say rather than read what you say, here's what I hear, "Shutup, Brad, the war's over, I don't want to hear it anymore."

You can't say it that way, of course, but that's what I hear. I am not offended, nor do I think any of you is actually showing any kind of disrespect (and even that wouldn't bother that much, adamant support for a position can often, occasionally push any of us over the line -- I'm certainly guilty of that.).

I could take a naive position an argue that I didn't know Denise's quote was intended as sarcastic or rhetorical, but I won't, I know that that was not expecting a response.

For that was the very purpose, sarcasm and rhetorical question are designed to do one and one thing only: stop the other party from talking.

The problem is that she can't just come out and say, "Shut up." The other problem is that any sarcasm can be read as sincere, any metaphor can be read as literal, any hyperbole can be taken at face value.

So, instead of taking heed of her 'real' intent, I decided to ask for clarification.

But I do have one complaint, stop telling me that you're done here if you keep responding to what I and others write, stop telling me that it's tedious and yet still write or complain about what others say, stop pretending that there's an end to this when any one of you might start another thread next week complaining about some other absurdity or another (from your point of view).

Because it's just not true.

I never said I'm going to stop and, of course, I'm never going to say that I'll do this forever either, the simple fact is I never know what's going to happen tomorrow. I don't see how you three can.

And my reason is astonishingly simple:

The war isn't over, it's just begun.
morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


40 posted 05-02-2003 04:30 PM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

....Plus, I dare anyone to say that they don't love coming here to argue/debate/whatever. Admit it people: we love doing this. That Brad, is why we (including myself here) always respond. We just love doing this. So maybe we should just agree to disagree and move on to the next topic......

And Denise, one other thing: We are probably the only ones reading these posts anyway, so I cannot see how anything we say here could really have any serious outcome. Like I said before, we are just shooting the breeze. It's not like GWB and Co. or Tony Blair are logging on to see what Tim said last, or how Balladeer is shaping up in todays topic. So please don't disappoint me by not contributing. We might have to fine you for that and you don't want to know what the exchange rate is in Jamaica.

Now if I could just goad Balladeer into putting up something about Cuba.....

[This message has been edited by morefiah (05-02-2003 04:44 PM).]

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


41 posted 05-02-2003 05:09 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
So maybe we should just agree to disagree and move on to the next topic......


Arrrggggghhhhhhh.

The problem is that moving on to the next topic (which is going to happen naturally anyway. There's never any reason to state that) means that the question really does revolve around liking or disliking Bush or that it revolves around the conflation between the necessary thing to do and the right thing to do. My position, as tedious as Tim thinks it is, makes no sense if I concede either of these points.

Quite simply, I can't do that.

Foxes and hedgehogs.

Crazy Eddie
Member
since 09-14-2002
Posts 221


42 posted 05-02-2003 06:06 PM       View Profile for Crazy Eddie   Email Crazy Eddie   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Crazy Eddie


Bradís just working out how to get to the meat.

But I think Morefiah has a point too, the reason some people tend to get upset is that itís their beliefs that are being questioned Ė they like debating issues and stating their opinions but they donít like questions getting in the way of those opinions. Which leads to people just agreeing to disagree.

Iíve been guilty of this.

At one point I thought I had a solution, instead of arguing for what you believe why not try arguing against it? The idea of building a case counter to your own stance may seem odd but itís a standard device to find the strengths and weaknesses of opposing ideas Ė knowing your enemy, if you like.

The obvious upside is that you can debate to your hearts content without becoming emotionally entangled or entrenched, another bonus is that the chances of learning something are increased, even if itís simply that opposing views often possess a lot of validity. The major downside is that it takes two to tango, if the person youíre talking to is arguing from a stance of staunch belief your argument is just as likely to be taken as an attack on their belief and result in both of you agreeing to agree.

Oops I changed the subject.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


43 posted 05-02-2003 07:23 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
... instead of arguing for what you believe why not try arguing against it?

I do that all the time. Probably most of the time, in fact. I often jump into a thread not because of the topic, but because I see (right or wrong) logic being twisted into a Mobius strip of illusion. There are a number of oft repeated forum topics where, to this day, no one knows my real position. That often seems to irk Brad to no end.
Crazy Eddie
Member
since 09-14-2002
Posts 221


44 posted 05-02-2003 07:44 PM       View Profile for Crazy Eddie   Email Crazy Eddie   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Crazy Eddie


Ron,

I just realised that itís entirely possible that there have been times when we were disagreeing to disagree.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


45 posted 05-02-2003 08:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"Ride the Pale Horse"...yes, I saw that movie, Eddy. It could work here but I doubt it would solve much because nothing here is that cut and dried. There are possibilities on both sides. I could make a pretty good case against Bush by ignoring the positive points and focusing on the negative and I'm sure Brad could make a good argument in favor of Bush....but the passion in both arguments would be diluted by the fact that we really believe the opposite...

Morefiah...good analogy on Bush, sir. I would only disagree with the tax breaks for the rich thoughts but that's a full thread within itself!! A thread on Cuba?? You kidding?? LOL! With my seven years living in Latin cultures and sitting here in South Florida surrounded by tens of thousands of Cuban refugees? I'd have enough to say for ten threads!!! I just can't come up with a "why" to do it....unless someone wants to suggest that Fidel is a fine, upstanding, misunderstood despot.

Brad, that was a fine side-step of ignoring the point I made in my response but it doesn't change it. The interesting point is that you would consider it a "consession" on your part to acknowledge that a dislike for Bush created this thread instead of a hope that someone at PIP could actually tell you where the WMD's are. I wouldn't call it conceding at all...I would call it being honest.

Yes, if a thread becomes personally insulting, I'm out of it. I don't mind mixing it up or trading barbs or even cute sarcasms in fun but personal insults have no place in anywhere I want to be. If I personally insult anyone , it is completely unintentional or else my joking around went awry and I would apologize. Yes, if I say "I like Bush", for example, and someone follows with "Anyone who likes Bush is an idiot" I will consider that a personal insult...that's just me. It certainly doesn't mean I won't show up in another thread, however.

Ron, I'm with Brad. I have no idea where you stand on anything, either!
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


46 posted 05-02-2003 11:50 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Never said nor thought your positions as being tedious Brad, at least not to my recolletion.  As I recall, you are the person who first labeled your positions tedious.

I might call your positions a lot of things, but doubt tedious would be one of them.  *smile*  (Hopefully you take that as an attempt at humor wrapped around a not too conspicuous but intended compliment)  

[This message has been edited by Tim (05-02-2003 11:52 PM).]

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


47 posted 05-03-2003 12:07 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Foxes and hedgehogs.

Hedgehogs and foxes.

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


48 posted 05-03-2003 12:21 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Hedgehogs and Hedgehogs
Perhaps some foxes need to be inserted into the crucible.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


49 posted 05-03-2003 12:25 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

or sometimes the hedgehog is not distinguishible from the fox, or vice versa.
 
 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 >> WMD's and Immediate Threats   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] 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