»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Bush bashing & warmongering
| The Alley |
|
Bush bashing & warmongering |
|
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA 
|
I don't know exactly what I want to say here. I'm tired and frustrated by the narrow views I hear and see expressed daily regarding the possible, probably combat with Iraq and about our president in general I've replied to a few posts regarding the war and my replies seem to always be the same, to the same comments. There are a few things we all agree on: 1. We don't like war 2. We don't want war 3. We would rather a peaceful solution What we don't agree on is: 1. Who is the cause of this impending war 2. What is the true reason for this war Most seem to place the blame on President Bush, he is the cause, he is the warmonger, he is rushing headlong into war, etc... Or on America. America is the big bad bully. Doing what they want to who they want, etc... War is about the oil... Okay, the easy ones first: This conflict is not about oil - honestly that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. There are so many ways for us to get cheaper oil or other resources. You expect me to believe that we are going to start a war. Wipe out a country, put a puppet government in place and ship out thier oil to the US for pennies on the dollar? and the rest of the world is just going to sit back and watch and life will go on? I don't think so. If it was about the oil, we would've turned a blind eye to Saddam and befriended him and gave him aid and food and everything else to get the cheap oil. Now the hard one: It is hard because human nature leads us to focus on the entity that acts, rather than the cause for the action. It is always the kids who hits back that gets in trouble, not the kid who hit first. Our nation is at war, we are at war against terrorism and terrorists and all those who support, lend aid, and harbor them. Saddam and his regeim is such an entity. They have trained and supported terrorist groups, they have and still do. Saddam, has invaded other countries, he has produced and used weapons of mass destruction, on his own people no less. He has murdered and ordered the murder of his own family members and his own citizens - all for the sake of retaining his dictatorial position. As Mr. Bush said "there is no question about the character of the man..." We know who and what Saddam is. We know what he is cabable of. We know he has biological weapons and has and will use them. We have given him 12 years to disarm - which he agreed to do, after the Gulf war. He has not disarmed, in truth he has armed, he has increased his stockpile of illegal weapons during the past 12 years. He has flown in the face of every effort of diplomacy for 12 years. I do have to point out that the bulk of those years, he was ignored by the American administration whose sole purpose seemed to be having sex in the oval office rather than protecting the US and the world. The question posed is this: If 12 years of diplomatic efforts did no good to disarm Saddam, what will 1 more month do? If you see a bully strutting around and picking on other people, are you at fault if you cause that bully to stop? When will it be 'okay' to go in and disarm Saddam? Ofter he unleashes a biological or chemical weapon on a neighboring country and thousands upon thousands of innocent people die? Or after he drops tactical missles on the Kurds, in his own country? Will it be okay to stop him then? I would rather avoid the avoidable. Stop the inevitable. We know the man, we know he will strike someone, somehow. We know he does aid and will aid terror, and we know, without a doubt that he will cause, or help to cause some great hurt in the world. We know this in our hearts and in our minds so what is the right thing to do? Sit back and let happen that which we can prevent? I think not. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
| © Copyright 2003 JP Burns - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: One would guess, JP, that you don't consider your own views to fall within that province of being narrow? Mightn't we also guess that those who choose to disagree with you feel the same about their own views? Using a semantically loaded term like "narrow views" to describe something with which you disagree rarely seems to accomplish anything useful. I'm sure you feel your arguments are very compelling. I suspect those who disagree with you find their own arguments just as compelling. The sad truth is that we often find ANY argument compelling if we already strongly believe it. If someone can't convincingly argue both sides of this question, they just haven't looked at it close enough. |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
I haven’t said much about this issue because I’m so confused..so conflicted. I’m at heart, a patriotic person. I vote. I put my hand over my heart during the National Anthem. I am the mother of a former member of the Air Force and am myself a member of the Women’s Auxiliary of the VFW. My father fought in World War II. With that background, I must tell you that I am not sure what to think or believe right now. If you watched President Bush last night, you would have noticed how soft-spoken he was…that was the first thing I noticed. I wondered if it was a ploy to soften the blow that we were going to war. But he made several references to ‘not’ being at war yet. He also mentioned ‘weapons of mass destruction’ many times (I’m tired of that phrase). In my opinion, it seemed the questions asked were never really answered. The replies he gave seemed prepared. It was like we were being spoon-fed rhetoric from previous speeches. I do believe Saddam is a terrible man. I’m not sure I want to see the civilians of Iraq suffer because of their leader. But with war, who is safe? I’m so confused. I also believe that North Korea poses a very serious threat. While we’re all watching Iraq, what mischief will they cause? What about the terrorist attacks around the world? The Philippines? Israel? Russia? Germany? France? How can we stop all those? Should we? I’m so confused. I don’t want us to go to war. The loss of lives is the main reason. As a mother, I don’t want to see another mother’s son brought home in a flag draped coffin. But I support my country. We have always had a history of coming to the aid of injustice in the world. We hung back in World War II and if we’d come forward sooner, I think it would have been better. We were chided then for staying out of the conflict. I’m so confused. I want peace. I don’t want war. But I want everyone to live their lives without fear that their government will take away their rights, their lives, their children, their homes and livelihood. Is it vicious of me to want someone to just find the ‘bad men’ in the world and get them? But I suppose that’s naïve. There will always be bad men. History repeats itself. I remember the patriotic fervor after 9/11. We were united in our desire to find the terrorists and make sure nothing like this ever happened again. (Is it the same fervor that was felt after World War II? After the Korean War? After Vietnam? After the Gulf War?) And still, I’m confused. I know I don’t know all the precise history or the precise political ploys being used. I’m just one person. Confused. Afraid of war. Afraid of terrorism. Afraid that if we don’t do something, there will be more destruction of innocent lives. I’m just so confused. |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
PdV makes some very good points, and Ron as well. I may have to qualify "narrow views" with the idea that I look at those who say "the only solution is to go in there and wipe them all out", or on the other end "There is never justification for war" or similar sentiments. War is horrible, but at times it is necessary. War is never the 'only' solution but most often the last resort and the 'best' alternative. I am a peaceful man at heart. I do not promote, nor relish the idea of war. I have seen combat up close (albeit, limited combat) I have had the duty to defend my life and what was deemed the security of our nation. I did that duty but did not relish it, but I understood its place and necessity. We cannot solve all the worlds problems, we cannot solve similar problems with similar approaches. As humans we have the capacity to view a problem and deal with it. In the case of world affairs, we will do ourselves and our neighbors a disservice if we try to take all the world's problems on at the same time with the same approach. What to do about Korea? Somalia? Isreal? India? and a dozen other troubled areas? I don't know. I do know that if I had access to the information that our leaders do, I would take each situation seperately and most likely come up with different approaches to each considering the facts of the cases... Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
JP, believe me, you are wasting your time. You may certainly state your views (which happen to be the same as mine) but if you think you have a chance of changing anyone's mind, you're mistaken. They are not interested in facts that contradict their way of thinking...and using factual information will not help.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Is that a generic "they," Balladeer? Seems to me it's applicable no matter which side of the street someone has pitched their tent. |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
On this side they are our they On that side we are their they |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not true, Ron. There is a side that deals with fact and one that deals with emotion. The factual side has little chance of convincing the emotional side, who simply choose to ignore whatever actual facts go against what their feelings dictate. The emotional side will not convince the factual side, which uses logic as their base. The U.N. right now is a perfect example... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You sure you want to go there, Mike?  Okay, I'll bite. Give me just one indisputable, completely logical fact to support either side of the issue. I'd love to see what one looks like. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It is an indisputable fact the Hussein has used biological weapons to murder civilians. If one is to believe scientists and engineers who have left Iraq (and recently appeared on tv newscasts, it is an indisputable fact that Hussein has WMD at this time. It is an indisputable fact (by his own words) that he considers the United States evil. It is an indisputable fact that Hussein has not lived up to the agreement of the Desert Storm surrender or the mandate of the U.N. There are more..... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I work in a very liberal oriented environment, liberal in the extreme, I would even say. I have had to listen to Bush bashing until I want to vomit. I have had to listen to distorted takes on various subjects ranging from how horrible Bush is, how wonderful Bill and Hillary were and are, how Bush stole the presidency (as if no one ever heard of the electoral college before) and as you have said, Balladeer, none of it is grounded in fact. The very words that come out of their mouths are evidence that they are formulating their opinions from some emotional level which seems to me a lot like an unreasonable hatred. When you present a fact (like the process of the electoral college and its intent, or the fact that three major newspapers actually did do their own Florida vote re-counts, and all conceded that Bush was indeed the winner)you are met with silence and a condescending glance. Why is that? I think it's because they have no intelligent rebuttal grounded in fact. The facts confuse and silence them. Someone today even said sarastically, "Oh they're supposedly closing in on Osama...that EVIL man..snicker...snicker". I was saddened that the deaths of over 3,000 people seem to mean nothing at all to some people. That is what I don't understand. I realize that Saddam was not one of the masterminds of 9/11. I also realize that he is a threat to the security of the world, and that diplomacy does not work with him. I realize that he has had 12 years to come into compliance and that he hasn't, and in that time he has been able to create even more biological and chemical weapons because the U.N. and the prior administration in the U.S. issued idle threats, as the U.N. seems bent on continuing. If 9/11 didn't teach the world how vulnerable we are, nothing will. A small group of fanatics caused 9/11. Imagine how much more damage could be wrought by a sponsoring nation bent on terrorist activity. To me it seems some people are afflicted with the "bury your head in the sand and everything will be okay syndrome". They don't yet realize, and maybe they never will, that we are in a fight for our very lives and future security from some very shrewd and dangerous factions. They think that we can sit down and have a civilized "tea" with barbarians and resolve all our differences and make nice-nice with everyone. Well, barbarians don't operate that way and are not interested in making nice with anybody. They are interested in domination, period. As for the war protestors: Protest, that is your right. Just stick to the facts. Don't ascribe to Bush diabolical intent for his policies, unless you can back it up with FACTS. Supposition and innuendo are not FACTS. Don't say that the President is a baby killing, dictatorial, oil greedy, blood-thirsty warmonger, a leader more dangerous to the world than Saddam and bin Laden, for in so doing you are only showing your ignorance. You'll never be taken seriously by THINKING people. |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Denise - hug...just have to say this: 'The very words that come out of their mouths are evidence that they are formulating their opinions from some emotional level' What else do you expect from humanity as a whole? Logic and emotion are constantly at war (perhaps an appropriate metaphor, and one that is entrenched in every aspect of our society, battling this and that...) It is of the vast majority to formulate opinions from an emotional basis. In fact, the majority of us (statistically proved, not talking out of sophistry here) first have emotional reactions to an event/issue/dilemna etc and then a percentage of us then go on to make a decision based on logic. Obviously, this means that many of our decisions are formed from our initial emotional reactions. Given that, I find it hardly surprising that many are currently deciding to speak from an emotional place, apparently without the presence of logic. Ever noticed how, when in the grips of an emotional response, it all seems so logical? And this only serves to expose our human vulnerability: I feel tender and enraged toward our race at the same, if that is possible. Bal...hate to say it, but facts are subjective things. Take a man from Papua New Guinea and show him his wife dying from cancer. To him it is a fact that she has been cursed by an angry ancestoral spirit. To us, it is fact that she is dying of cancer due to our cultural endorsement of the western bio-medicine system (also a system riddled in war metaphor). Who decides for whom what the fact is?  K |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Severn, you can't eat a rock by calling it bread. If you can't distinguish which is fact between an ancestor's evil spell and a medically-tested cancer diagnosis, then you are closing your mind to intelligence and logic. Counter with as many good spells as you may - the person will still die of cancer. Yes, it is human nature to respond emotionally. That doesn't make it right or change facts. One should be glad to have someone in charge who will choose logical deduction over emotional response. I am.... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
It is an indisputable fact the Hussein has used biological weapons to murder civilians. … it is an indisputable fact that Hussein has WMD at this time. It is an indisputable fact (by his own words) that he considers the United States evil. Uh, which side of the issue are those statements supposed to support, Mike? By themselves, they are pretty much irrelevant to either side. At least I would hope so, since they apply to many other countries as well. Indeed, the first two points unequivocally apply to us. And, sadly, the third point appears to apply to more than a few American citizens these days, too. It is an indisputable fact that Hussein has not lived up to the agreement of the Desert Storm surrender or the mandate of the U.N. Valid point. And China says that you and I can't use Google. The question, of course, is whether you and I are going to recognize China's authority over us. Governmental authority, after all, is only valid if those being governed accept it. Or, of course, if it is enforced with a "might makes right" iron hand. Does China have the right to determine what we can see on the Internet? Does it have the right to kill us if we fail to obey? Anyone have any idea how many U.N. Resolutions and other treaties the U.S. has failed to abide? This game works both ways, of course. You cheated a little, I think, and gave me "facts" that apply to only one side of the issue. Give me some for the other side and we'll find they are either just as irrelevant as your first three, or are based on unspoken assumptions like your fourth. It's a bit like arguing abortion or capital punishment or a host of other irresolvable issues. People believe what they want to believe. They don't have reasons for their belief, though they like to call them that. They have only justifications. Supposition and innuendo are not FACTS. Amen, Denise. And neither are judgements or imagination. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Ron, I'm sorry you consider my facts irrelevant....as far as the fourth, it was in reference to the surrender Iraq agreed to. therefore it is not the refusal to recognize other people's demands on them..it's the refusal to comply with what they had agreed to comply with (and which, incidentally, they are STILL claiming that they are complying with.) I only gave facts for one side because I only see facts for one side. If there are facts for the other I don't know them. You asked for facts....I supplied them. The next step is to take the facts and derive whatever conclusions or probabilities from them one can. Hussein has always been a tyrant. He has invaded other countries, used biological weapons on civilians and had an arsenal of WMD yet, until now, we have done nothing. There is no doubt that 9/11 changed the playing field. Before that we were untouchable. No one had ever attacked the United States, with the exception of Pearl Harbor, which is outside of the continental borders. Now they have. We have felt our vulnerability. We know that there are groups out there who will infiltrate our borders and kill us. We know that terrorist groups have been inspired by our vulnerability and that the chance of further attacks are possible, even probable. It is the administration's decision to neutralize these threats before they can act. It is their view that a tyrant with a stockpile of biological weapons who hates the United States and is sympathetic to terrorist groups presents a threat to the US and they intend to neutralize that threat before it can happen. If they were to do nothing and Hussein were linked to a future attack on the US the same people who are protesting now would be screaming for his head that he didn't do anything to eliminate that threat before it happened. Who would be the first in line to say, "Gee, I never thought...."? You? Maybe Allen? Probably not. Bush has looked at the facts at hand, weighed probabilities, and planned his course of action in the interests of the United States, not because of oil, not because he's a new warmonger...but to do his best to insure that there is not another 9/11. You may fault him for that if you wish. I don't. On an interesting sidenote, the German representative (you know, the country that says they are not convinced Hussein has biological weapons) issued a statement today that, if American troops go to Iraq and come under fire, German troops will not enter Iraq to give aid for fear of biological weapons....you gotta smile. |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Hey Bal - thank you for proving my point that facts are indeed subjective... How do you know cancer is cancer exactly? I'm talking real knowledge here...your knowledge comes from the society you live in, its institutions, its ideologies, its philosophy of thought etc. Hey, I agree btw - the woman has cancer, not a curse lol... but this is my point exactly: 'if you can't distinguish which is fact between an ancestor's evil spell and a medically-tested cancer diagnosis'.. Yes, we can distinguish the 'fact' here - us, in our society. 'They' can't. To people who do not live with Western biomed as their medical frame, of course it's a fact that their loved ones have been cursed. (Interestingly, the Haitians blamed the Aids epidemic on that...) Of course this is not the point...the point is only that facts are subjective. We all see the world in different ways. One man's fact is another's one's humbo jumbo. The fact that Bush is leading this war - and perhaps prematurely - is fact to me. I call this fact for several reasons, primarily because my information is gathered from internationally reputable news sources. It is also fact, to me, that in today's Western society (and others) war is the answer that is viewed as inevitable. Grin and bear it and so on. It is fact that we haven't developed a better way to deal with these kinds of situations yet. It is emotional opinion that I doubt we're trying very hard. K[This message has been edited by Severn (03-08-2003 12:35 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
oh, by the way....you said... "Give me just one indisputable, completely logical fact to support either side of the issue" then.... "You cheated a little, I think, and gave me "facts" that apply to only one side of the issue" You see anything strange there or am I just having trouble understanding English tonight?  |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
I think our warmongering president stated his position well in his news conference. He took an oath to uphold the constitution and to support and defend our great country. He believes Saddam is a threat to our peace and well being. His staff and many around the world believe the same. He is making the decisions he feels are right and necessary to protect our country and the rest of the world. We can second guess him, but the only way to know if he is right or wrong is to jump into the future along two separate timelines, one with and one without war. Go into the future and see how it all turns out, then come back and let the rest of us know so we can move along with no mistakes... Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Balladeer, JP, and Denise ~ I could not agree more. Too many people on the "left side" of this issue reason with emotion rather than fact and logic, and utilize ad hominem when reaching a conclusion - mainly their dislike for Bush. I do not want war. After the dust settled yesterday, the U.S. and her allies, have agreed to give Saddam til the 17th of March, I believe, to finally come clean. To prevent a war against his nation, to put the lives of his people ahead of his personal ambition, to fully comply with the UN resolutions, to save his own hide, all he has to do is comply. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I was going to stay out of this one. I tried, I really did. The only thing I was thinking about was the facticity of facts and I was going to post that in the philosophy forums. The problem with facts is primarily two-fold: they become extremely hard to pin down and they aren't compelling. Example: Don't go near that cliff, it's two hundred feet down. You might fall and kill yourself. Answer: Don't tell me what to do. I know that. I won't fall, I'm not stupid enough to do that, and if I do fall that's what I wanted to do anyway. ---------------- Opeth, While I agree that the Left has said some pretty stupid things -- Bush and Hussein are not morally, politically, or personality-wise the same -- I fail to see how that defeats any arguments that might be legitimate (more later). The Left and emotionalism are not synonymous, anymore than the Right and jingoism are synonymous. Or are you really going to tell me that those on the 'right side' never use emotion to persuade people? ---------------------------- Michael, It's not so much that the facts you give are irrelevant as that they never have been in dispute -- more or less. They were not in dispute in 2000. The belief then was that containment was the correct action. That he has not used any of these weapons on another country in twelve years is just as much an argument that containment works as it is an argument for war now. The change in thinking occurred as a result of 911. The change then is not based on new facts that have come to light, it is based on a change in belief as the result of an event, not the event, a fact, itself (I'll add an aside on this later). It is now believed that America is vulnerable, but the idea that America was invulnerable was a mistaken belief and I can show that with a list of facts if you want. The advantage of making the argument that he might use them sometime in the future is that you only have to be right once. Of course, weapons of mass destruction may not be important as the weapon of choice on 911 was box cutters (a fact). --------------- Severn, Why I think I understand what you mean by subjective fact, I think it's probably better to avoid that usage. Facts are objective in that they are true regardless of what we believe. We call things facts if we inter-subjectively agree on them (and there's the rub). The problem is that people, on all sides of the political spectrum, use the term 'fact' to mean their belief. When you say subjective facts, you mean the way people use the word, but no saying, no statement, no word is a fact. These refer to facts, they aren't facts themselves. But this is tricky, facts are tricky, tricky things. Needless to say, stating something as a fact is pretty much useless if the opposing party doesn't think it is a fact or, even if they think it is a fact, that it is irrelevant or insignificant to the issue. An aside: does anybody remember the secretly televised interview of Bin Laden as he laughed and smiled at the fall of the twin towers? In that interview, he said something like, "With my training in engineering, I did not imagine that the twin towers could fall, praise Allah." Now this is all from memory right now so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember thinking, "So much for your knowledge of engineering." But that's not what he thought. He meant that it was factually impossible for the twin towers to fall. So, how did they fall? God must be on our side. Facts, by the very nature, are interpretable and that's why they aren't compelling. For while I disagree that facts are subjective, we can have no facts without a point of view. Huh? What? But that's another thread. ------------------- And so, what's my view. Luckily, I found an article that pretty much covers most of what I believe. It snubs the Russians and the French -- getting a little tired of that (though I know another interesting article that points out French bullying in Eastern Europe), but here it is: http://slate.msn.com/id/2079678/ author: Fred Kaplan quote: quote: And finally, quote: I watched a BBC 'town meeting' tonight, a tit for tat 'conversation' between people from Jordan and people from New York (and Ed Koch of all people) on this issue. I found the most interesting comment came from a Briton. He said that the polls are misleading, most Americans are asking the same questions everybody else is: Are we being a juggernaut? Shouldn't we listen to others? Is there another way? What happens next? I think that's probably true. But, you never know, Bush may be right. Let's hope, as JP alludes, that he is if this goes through. [This message has been edited by Brad (03-08-2003 11:03 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Balladeer said: quote: You misunderstood, Michael. I wasn't faulting Bush or his Administration. Nor was I faulting those who believe war is the inevitable cost of ousting Hussein. If it sounded that way, it was only because those were the "facts" you gave me. Had you given me different "facts," like perhaps the historical failure of military action against terrorism, it might instead have sounded like I was finding fault with those who believe war is premature, and that too would not have been the case. Current events are not being driven by facts, but by fear. One side is afraid of what will happen if we don't act, while the other is afraid of what will happen if we do. Both sides are throwing around "facts" to support what they believe, and apparently forgetting that well-supported opinions are STILL opinions. Both sides are convinced of a future that hasn't happened yet and which, by definition, cannot be a fact. And both sides, it sometimes seems, think that cheap shots are the only way to win an argument they instinctively know can't be won. I'm not faulting Bush. I'm not faulting those who think the coin toss will come up heads, or those absolutely convinced it will be tails. If I am finding fault with anyone at all, it would be those who think they can take some moral high-ground and utterly dismiss those who disagree with them. I've come to expect a "We're right, you're wrong" mentality, but will never be able to sit back and accept a "We're smart, you're stupid" stance from either side of an important issue. There are some pretty smart people on both sides of this question, with some very smart things to say to us. It might be wise to start listening. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Brad, "While I agree that the Left has said some pretty stupid things -- Bush and Hussein are not morally, politically, or personality-wise the same -- I fail to see how that defeats any arguments that might be legitimate (more later)." ~ I'm all for legitimate arguments. From the evidence that I have read, I am still straddling the fence on this issue. I would hope that Saddam would comply with the resolutions. He knows the consequences if he does not comply. The ball is therefore in his court. All he has to do is say, "Uncle." It is as simple as that. "The Left and emotionalism are not synonymous, anymore than the Right and jingoism are synonymous." Jingoism, now that is new term for me. I disagree. And not only that, the experience I have on this matter, it is not an opinion. It is a fact, that the "left" bases their argument moreso on emotion, than the "right." "Or are you really going to tell me that those on the 'right side' never use emotion to persuade people?" ~ Did I ever say, "never"? No. Of course, there are "polarizers" on both sides of the issues who base their opinions on emotions, not facts, but that does not mean one choice or the other is not more of a legitimate choice. What I hear on most websites is this... 1. Damn republicans, all they want is war! 2. Bush is a warmonger! 3. Bush is doing this for oil! 4. Bush is lying. ad nauseum... That is the main argument that the peace lovers use, from what I have read, which in pseudoreasoning, is the fallacy known as ad hominem. Not facts, but emotional dislike for Bush and republicans. Also, I should include, anti-trust of the American Government. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ah, but there might be a solution: http://slate.msn.com/id/2079746/ author: same guy The problem concerning 1441: quote: The solution? quote: A stab in the dark, I know. But a win/win situation if it works. The US and UK could claim that it was the immediate threat of force that caused the disarmament and everybody else could claim that the UN still has real utility. Everybody still matters. No, I don't think it's going to happen, but why not grasp for straws when people are going to die. [This message has been edited by Brad (03-08-2003 01:20 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
JP said: 'We know who and what Saddam is. We know what he is cabable of.' Sharon said: 'I do believe Saddam is a terrible man.' Sharon speaks for herself, and she says that this is what she believes. I don't agree with her, in the sense that I don't believe anybody is inherently terrible. But she has a right to her view, and I have to respect it. JP, on the other hand is speaking for some unnamed collective. Who are 'we'? Do you mean Americans? If so, watch it. Don't tell me what I know. Are you speaking for the people who agree with you, that war is necessary? So, let me ask you this... how exactly do you 'know' what Saddam is capable of? Is this based on his past actions? How do you know he isn't capable of completely changing his course of action, realizing what a bad guy he's been, and cooperating? I mean, my father used to get drunk every day. I never would have considered him capable of quitting... but lo and behold, the man is now a diabetic and he never drinks. I had serious behavioral and emotional problems as an adolescent, and I was holding about a 1.2 after my freshamn year. I graduated with a (hard-earned) 3.0, and now I'm holding a 4.0 at a challenging private school... and while I can't claim a perfect emotional balance (can any of us?) I think I've managed to straighten up... however, when I was 14, nobody saw that coming. I was a future women's prison inmate, a failure, a go-nowhere. Somebody else mentioned this... but your 'factual' projection of what somebody is capable of is inherently flawed. Humans have an amazing ability to turn their lives around. Do I think Saddam will all of a sudden befriend us and be a 'good guy?' No... but that's my opinion. I'm not a fortune teller, and neither are you, or the Bush administration. Of course... why the assumption that we are the 'good guys?' Ron pointed out that some of Balladeer's points about Iraq apply easily to the U.S. So by what moral authority can we disarm Saddam? I though Brad's excerpts were really interesting, as well... our argument to attack Iraq is based on their breaches of U.N. mandates... but the U.N. isn't really giving us the go-ahead either... what makes it okay for the U.S. to be aggressive against the U.N.'s wishes, while Iraq can't? Severn's point about subjective truths are interesting, but I see why Balladeer can't relate to it- to us, it sounds silly. It's easy to think of an aboriginal culture as less advanced that Euro-American culture and knowledge. But what about our Euro-American heritage of 'truth'? Until about the last century or so, really whacky medical treatments were commonplace in Europe and America... bloodletting, leeches, using poisons as a laxative... Now, there were some much more effective folk cures around, but these were dismissed and oppressed, first as 'witchery' during the inquisition, and later on as inneffective as 'heroic medicine' appeared as a commodity. Now, St. Hildegard of Bingen wrote a book during the twelfth century, listing healing properties of different plants and trees. Derivitaves of these are used today in modern medicine- yet, they were lost for centuries in favor of church- and socially-mandated healing practices. This is a case in which the objective (and easily quantifiable) truth was suppressed in favor of Roman Catholic 'truths'... for centuries! Even when Protestantism emerged, they carried on the tradition of ridiculous treatments- because folk medicine didn't produce immediate (profitable) results. Elements of this can still be seen in surgery-pushing doctors... People who spoke out against these 'truths' were burned, hung, or socially ostracized. This isn't a matter of an 'uncivilized' tribe caliming a belief we consider ridiculous... this is a matter of the ridiculous completely hijacking the truth, destroying it, and implementing their own ineffective (but don't forget profitable) replacement. Severn's point about truths being socially conditioned is very pertinent, I think. We are conditioned to believe that a dictatorship is inherently wrong, or evil, because of our relatively democratic culture. Yes, I believe tyranny is terrible, and wrong, but do we have the right to decide that for the rest of the world? Do we have the right to impose our beliefs as undeniable fact? Interesting thread... [This message has been edited by hush (03-08-2003 02:44 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I was with Brad in hoping to stay out of this one in favor of working on some overdue replies on some other threads, but there are a couple of areas where I think I can contribute. I agree with Deer that it does absolutely no good to try to persuade anyone on this issue -- so I'm not even going to discuss that aspect of the thread -- there is a more compelling issue here. Ron said quote: Unfortunately I think it goes way beyond that. Tonight something very telling is going to happen. I agree with JP when he iterates his revulsion at people who use this subject to demonize Bush. Maybe I can speak with a little moral authority here because I think everyone knows I have no affinity for this President even if he is my moron. It is absolutely ridiculous, and maybe even seditious, for American Citizens to make a claim that their President is more dangerous to the world than Saddam Hussein. But I don't want to go into the whys. It's disingenuous for a number of reasons -- but I'm not for silencing them or throwing them out of shopping malls for wearing T-Shirts. On the other side of the coin --tonight at 5PM(E)-- making his debut on national television (MSNBC) is the notorious Micheal Savage. This is a man who says the left wing of politics in this country is the enemy, that they are a greater threat to the country than Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. This is the man who, on the day of Fred Rogers death, dedicated his radio talk show to the topic of whether or not Mr. Rogers was an appropriate role model for boys. And his voice is resonating with Americans. People have been growing more and more entrenched in their ideology, more polarized, and it's dangerous. People can't just disagree anymore. If you disagree with me I'm supposed to see you as my enemy. This disgusts me. Nixon and McGovern were friends. This is NIXON I'm talking about. After Columbine the left screamed about gun control and the NEA being full of leftists helped implement "Zero Tolerance" policies in the schools to the point of expelling children with nail clippers -- or in one case an Eagle Scout about to graduate with honors who mistakenly left a butter knife in the bed of his truck with some camping gear after a weekend in the woods. Yet -- these people say that containment is ok for Saddam Hussein. After Reno's Raiders stormed into Waco to disarm David Koresh the right wingers started bantering about phrases like "jack booted thugs" and that he had a right to bear (illegal) arms. One of them even blew up the Murrah building over it. These people can't wait to go disarm Saddam Hussein. Are these people dealing in facts or ideologies? Was Europe ravaged by wars over ideology, religion, and land disputes for centuries? Are we at a critical point in our nation's history when we can't have discourse without malice? On a side note... For the first time in history France, Germany, and Russia agree on something. Spooky? [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-08-2003 04:00 PM).] |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
LR - The framework of our society is an ideology...I'd say that might answer your question, in an ironical fashion... be back later K |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Of course you're correct ... But my question wasn't about whether or not there are ideologies but about what we're doing with them. I grew up in the shadow of Shiloh... one of the biggest battles of the American Civil War. I also lived on top of Missionary Ridge -- one of the most barbaric battles of that war. We've had a major terrorist attack committed by an American against Americans from one side of the political spectrum here. We have peaceful liberal environmentalists blowing up SUV's in auto dealer parking lots. The speech of both sides continues to ratchet up. That's what I'm saying... not asking.. Thanks |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
With regard to the question of indisputable facts I’m pretty much with Ron – they don’t exist – it’s not just the problem that facts are almost impossible to correlate with truth it’s the claim that they are indisputable. For a fact to be indisputable it has to be universally accepted, there can be no alternate beliefs, no contrary explanations no questions regarding the legitimacy of the stated fact -–in effect no dispute that the fact is in fact a fact. To test the assertion that the purported facts given by Deer are indisputable is easy, you don’t need to question the purported facts themselves you simply need to confirm that everyone accepts them without question - that not a single person disputes them. If there is one solitary person that disputes them they are not indisputable unless that persons questions or assertions are proved to be either irrelevant or unfounded. Severn raised the point that facts can be different for different people, I agree with Brad that this although philosophically interesting and ostensibly correct is probably a moot point with regard to truth. That said I have to disagree that ancestral spells can be totally discounted as mumbo jumbo without proof that they absolutely do not have anything to do with cancer. Before everybody decides that I’m closing my mind to intelligence and logic with that statement I’d like to add that I believe that they probably don’t but I’m willing to believe they possibly might. Back to the original post. quote: Yes, and I’d be the first one advocating military intervention in such a scenario, I simply don’t believe that we need to invade Iraq to avoid the possibility of such an occurrence. Brad suggested in another post that my belief in this respect is due to my need to attain a moral high ground, I think he’s bang on the button, my support for any war would require it to be morally correct – a just war. My opinion is that at this time war is neither morally correct nor just. My arguments against war have often included the term pre-emptive strike and the claim that such an action could not be deemed moral. I think I was completely wrong in that respect. A pre-emptive strike against a clear and present threat or danger can be deemed morally correct, fortunately we do not face such a threat or danger, what we face is the potential for such an occurrence. An attack under such circumstances cannot be classed as a pre-emptive strike and consequently carries no moral justification, a more reasonable description would be a preventative strike, an action that has far more serious consequences and implications and no need for a claim to the moral high ground. [This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (03-09-2003 10:26 AM).] |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
I could go on about this, debating points of view, points of issue, etc. However, I have neither the energy, nor the inclination to continue stating my POV (what I FEEL should be obvious to most rational beings) I will comment on one or two small things: "the point is only that facts are subjective." Facts are not subjective, their very definition eleminates subjectivity. It is our interpretation of the facts or our choice of how we choose to view the facts that is subjective. "Are you speaking for the people who agree with you, that war is necessary? So, let me ask you this... how exactly do you 'know' what Saddam is capable of? Is this based on his past actions?" The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. More often than not a person will act and react to a situation as they have done so in the past. A valuable tool in interviewing "behavior based job interviewing" and a good rule of thumb to use when dealing with a murderous tyrant. Ultimately I just have to reiterate: Bush did not 'start' this - he may be leading the way and the only world leader with testicles hard enough to stand up for what he believes is the right thing to do and take action, but he did not start this - Saddam gets the prive for that. Let's not confuse what is happening with a bunch of pointless personal attacks, nor should we equate this action with other military actions (Vietnam in particular), this is a horse of a different color. Finally, try to take a step back from your emotions and look at what is going on and seperate it from knee-jerk emotional reactions and commentary. Bush-bashing will not stop what is going to happen, being personally cruel and hurtful to someone (who will never hear you anyway) will do nothing more than diminish you. A blot that you and I will have to live with. We will need each other in the ensuing months. We will need each others love, respect, support, and crying shoulder.... Let us not destroy that by insulting behavior led by confused and emotional outbursts resulting from our fear and confusion. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
JP- Just a couple of things. 'how exactly do you 'know' what Saddam is capable of? Is this based on his past actions?" The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. More often than not a person will act and react to a situation as they have done so in the past.' More often than not isn't always. You can say that "More often than not a person will act and react to a situation as they have done so in the past" is a fact (that is, if you have statistics to back it up- still the fact might be debateable, but a very solid case for a fact is there.) However, you cannot claim that because one's actions are very often similar to their past actions, that we know what Saddam will do. We can predict, and like I said, I personally don't think he's going to show any remarkable turnaroud... on the other hand, somebody earlier remarked that the fact that he has been effectively contained for the last 12 years shows that containment is working... so doesn't it stand to reason that the last 12 years of behavior are more indicative than his aggressive behaviors before then? Granted, I realize that doesn't mean his actions within his own country are moral or right... but that's not the main argument for the war. 'Bush did not 'start' this - he may be leading the way and the only world leader with testicles hard enough to stand up for what he believes is the right thing to do and take action' Because Bush/America thinks it's right, it is therefore right? Who do we have actually backing us besides Britain? This isn't rhetorical, I actually want to know. Maybe Saddam thought he was right in invading Kuwait. I don't know how the guy thinks, what kind of rationalizations he used... but the mind is a funny thing. I believe Hitler's grudge against Jews started when he was rejected from an art school and all the Jewish shopowners refused to buy his work... By our standards, there's no way that justifies an attempted genocide. But by most of the world's standards, the evidence doesn't justify war. 'Bush-bashing will not stop what is going to happen, being personally cruel and hurtful to someone...' 'We will need each others love, respect, support, and crying shoulder.... Let us not destroy that by insulting behavior led by confused and emotional outbursts resulting from our fear and confusion.' I don't think anybody has bashed Bush in this thread? Am I bashing Bush by questioning what moral authority we have to attack another country? I just want to say that I totally respect your opinion on the war... and also that I'm not necessarily taking a stand on it... I'm asking questions, because I don't know. Do I personally believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Do I think he's capable of selling them to terrorists? Yes, I think it's a possibility... although I have read articles that attempt to demonstrate that Saddam and Al Qeuada have no known links. But there is possible danger lurking all over the world, and I just don't see what makes Iraq a more impending threat than anyone else. I also have several suspicions that I can't quantify, but they're there all the same... why Saddam? What happenned to Osama? Are we going into a war to take the limelight off of our so-far failed attempted to capture bin Laden? Is Bush just trying to finish his daddy's work? Is he using post 9/11 fear to justify the war? Do we just want (rather than oil) a strategic positioning for a new Iraqi government we may control, directly or indirectly? These aren't attacks, they're feelings I can't shake based upon the fact that I think the media is giving us only what we should hear, and that the government is always up to something it tries to hide from American people... so, whatever, we're going whether we like it or not, Bush has built this up so strongly that even if he wanted to back off, he can't now because he'll look like an idiot. It's out of our hands... |
||
|
winston Member
since 2002-12-19
Posts 204NW of Eden |
There's no denying that Saddam Hussein is "terrible", "bad", "wrong", "evil", etc. We are all agreed on that. If we all can do that, then, surely, by logical necessity, we can come to agree that Jebediah & Katherine Bush & their supporters in Florida are guilty of vote rigging. I have a personal story attached to this, a friend of mine, Jim, was told that he couldn't vote because coincidentally his first name added to his last name happened to be one of the names on Jeb's "felon list". Jim pleaded with the police but they just wouldn't let him go in and use his right to vote. Am a patriot in so far as I value diversity, and tolerate diversity that America was founded on, but I'll tell you this, am not the only American who isn't fooled easily. It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, & incumbency. --G. "DUBYA" BUSH. June 14, 2001. Unaware of rolling TV camera. [This message has been edited by winston (03-09-2003 01:17 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Kamla, Hugs right back at ya! I disagree that facts are subjective. As others have said, I think it is our perceptions of those facts that can be subjective, but a fact remains a fact, by its very definition, depsite personal perceptions.quote: Point taken, Ron. Those on the right and left of the issue are capable of operating out of an emotional area based on their ideologies and perceptions of indisputable facts and I am just as vulnerable as anyone else. It's something that we all have to examine ourselves about and make adjustments where necessary. From my vantage point, I see the right mostly operating from a position of suspicion (of the enemies of freedom) and fear (of our newly acquired sense of vulnerability post 9/11) and the left from a position of suspicion of and hatred for the current administration (certainly not all of them, but the majority that I personally have contact with). I have no problem with those whose ideologies and interpretation of the facts lead them to be against war as a necessary next step, just as I have no problem with those, like Sharon, who are totally confused and conflicted, or with those who see war as the only answer to the current problem. The thing that I have a problem with is the "bashing" by some who are anti-war. Their position would be better advanced if they clearly stated their position, and their reasoning for their position, instead of spewing "hate rhetoric". It seems that the line is drawn between those who believe that containment of Saddam is acceptable and the way to go, and those who believe that total disarmament, voluntary or involuntary, is the way to go. I don't think that a valid case can be made that containment works when Saddam has been able to increase his production of weapons over the past 12 years. Unless Saddam voluntarily disarms completely, I personally see war as necessary for world stability and safety, but I certainly respect the views of those who don't see it the same as I do (my sister among them). What I don't respect are the views of the "hate mongerers". Winston, based upon which facts are we to logically conclude that the votes in Florida were rigged? As for Jim, if he indeed is not a felon (felons lose their right to vote for life) and it is a case of mistaken identity, I'd advise him to take it up with his Representatives at the State and Federal level to clear up the issue so that he may vote in future elections. I've also noticed in other posts of yours, Winston, that your spelling of certain words is not in typical American fashion (which was why I was surprised when I first read in a prior post that you were American), but after the U.K. fashion (such as favour instead of favor, for instance). Was the majority of your education abroad? |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Denise, quote: I disagree a fact doesn’t always remain a fact, if it did progress would be impossible. The fact that the earth was flat gave way to the fact that the earth was perfectly round which in turn gave way to the fact that the earth was sort of round but not quite. Each previous fact had valid reasoning and logical thought on it’s side but still managed to be relegated to the category of the non-factual. I also disagree that facts are facts despite personal perceptions, I believe facts are facts because of personal perceptions and when those perceptions change facts tend to change accordingly. quote: I agree with this apart from the fact that I fall into the second category but am vehemently against war at this time. Perhaps a clearer categorisation would be. Those that don’t want a war at any cost Those who think that war is the only option Those who think that diplomacy must be given a chance For the first time in my life I find myself openly admiring and supporting the French. Give Iraq a strict and attainable timetables for disarmament via the UN and monitored by the weapon inspectors and then bomb the hell out of them if they don’t comply. I don’t think this would work though, I’ve a sneaky suspicion that removing the weapons of mass destruction isn’t enough, I may be wrong of course, what do you think? If Iraq surrendered all it’s weapons of mass destruction tomorrow would the war be cancelled? Tony Blair says it would but then again all Englishmen are liars. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Crazy Eddie, Well, since the Earth was never flat, despite what most people believed, it can't be said that it was ever a 'fact'. I'll go along with the added category. I personally believe though that diplomacy has been given a chance and it has failed. I believe that by removing the weapons of mass destruction it would make this a safer world, not safe, but safer. Yes, I do believe that the war would be 'cancelled' if Saddam completely disarmed, or put forth a believable good faith effort that he wishes to work out a time table for disarmament and/or accepted exile from Iraq. I don't think that we will see him doing anything of these things though, unfortunately. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Denise So if it were discovered that a high ranking general subsequently arrested and punished by Saddam ordered the use of chemical weapons against civilians the fact quoted by Deer that he had used chemical weapons on civilians would not be, in fact, a fact. What if it turned out that he had ordered the chemical bombing but it wasn’t civilians he bombed but a bunch of terrorists? Facts are transient in nature depending on the available evidence or the perception of the evidence that does exist, when the earth was believed to be flat it was held to be a fact, on the evidence I’ve read I believe Saddam did order the gassing of civilians in the same way that the people believed the earth was flat, neither is or was an indisputable fact. quote: That’s interesting, George Bush seems to be demanding the removal of Saddam on moral grounds to free the oppressed people of Iraq from an evil dictator but if that isn’t the case why not give the French suggestion of a reasonable fixed timetable of disarmament issued by the UN and overseen by the weapon inspectors a try? quote: A good point but the diplomacy so far has given Saddam too much room to wriggle around in, a fixed and reasonable timetable makes it crystal clear that if he does not actively attempt to meet the targets the UN will bomb the hell out of him and Iraq. Diplomacy just needs another chance, let’s take a look at those categories again: Those that don’t want a war at any cost This group are unfortunately never likely to reach their goals. Those who think that war is the only option This group will get their way if diplomacy fails Those who think that diplomacy must be given a chance Which leaves the French, Germans, Russians and me in this group (anyone else?). Most people believe that Iraq must disarm, every country bar one in the UN holds that conviction, the sticking point seems to be whether we give him another chance or give up trying and start a war. In my view there’s nothing to lose trying the French option, if he disarms we’ve avoided war and if he doesn’t we’ve at least removed some of the weapons he could use against us if and when we do go in. An added bonus is that America would gain international respect that I believe they’ve lost for not supporting or entertaining such an option. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"If we all can do that, then, surely, by logical necessity, we can come to agree that Jebediah & Katherine Bush & their supporters in Florida are guilty of vote rigging." Logical necessity??? I can think of no better example to the fact that people will avoid, or be ignorant of, the facts and still make derrogatory statements than the above quote. If you had read Denise's earlier statement or if you knew the actual facts behind the Florida vote then you would not make such an irresponsible statement....or else you would be like millions of others and not let the facts matter. That is one of the biggest problems...people are willing to close their eyes to actual facts if they interfere with their own perspective....and they are eager to be insulting while doing it. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
winston- 'There's no denying that Saddam Hussein is "terrible", "bad", "wrong", "evil", etc. We are all agreed on that.' Hm, have you read this thread entirely? I don't agree with that. I'm sick and tired of people speaking for me on that issue... because someone's status as terrible or evil is not a fact, and unlike the cancer or medical scenarios, it cannot even be purported to be fact. "Everyone" does not agree to this- I have instantly challaenged your statement. Change your statement. Saddam is in material breach... Or Saddam hoardes the nations money to build palaces for himself whil his people starve. These can be argued at face value because it's clear what is meant... but I'm going to argue that people are not evil... it's not your statement so much as that premise, which is overwhelmingly prevalent in this country, that bugs me. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
hush, with all due respect, be bugged if you wish but if you do not consider him evil then you have definitions of evil I am not familiar with. It is well documented that he has tortured and murdered many. It is also documented that he slaughtered thousand with poison gas. It is documented that one of his first acts was murdering all members of the government he felt were a threat to him. It is on film. The Kurds have a museum displaying the atrosities committed by his troops under his command. They show pictures of small children being shot to death...having been tickled seconds before so that they would be laughing when they died. This is documented. He killed members of his own family for betraying him. He set the Kuwait oil fields on fire. There are so many crimes and atrocities attributed to him - and documented - that I find it inconceiveable that anyone could not consider this man truly evil. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This is deeply disturbing: quote: quote: Tetosterone means unemotional? Do me a favor, don't get angry at this, listen to yourself. |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Me? Angry? Never. I'm allowed emotion too ya know. I do try to subjugate it with logic once in a while however. Yes, I do get a bit frustrated and spew stupidity from time to time, so when I found myself beating my fist against a wall... well, I bowed out, ungracefully it seems... I'm still bothered that some here seem to confuse facts with information or misinformation. The earth in spherical in shape, always has been, just because the information of the age caused people to believe it was flat didn't make flatness a fact. Belief and fact are entirely seperate things, hopefully we can believe the facts and not the assumptions of what we wish to be... Thanks for calling me on my error Brad. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Balladeer said: quote: Semantics suck, but they're still important because they allow us to communicate effectively. If a man is six foot five most of the time, but haphazardly shrinks down to four foot three part of the time, is it semantically correct to call him a "tall man?" Of course, that's a ridiculous questions because a man's height, unlike his character, doesn't fluctuate with circumstances. People are neither good nor evil, but are a blend of each. In vastly different proportions, of course. In my opinion, it is semantically questionable to call a person good or evil. Those qualifiers are best left to the actions of a person. Still, I rather suspect even that isn't what Amy really means. Ever read the biography of Al Capone? That guy did a lot of very evil things in his life. And he seemingly could justify every single one of them, because of what had been done to him. Alphonse "Scarface" Capone did not see himself as evil, and I seriously doubt that Saddam or Adolph or any other man in history ever got out of bed in the morning and said, "Gee, I think I'll do something truly evil today." That's not human nature, not even among sociopaths. Is that really an important distinction, though? I think it is, because the minute we label someone, we tend to look no deeper. You can't understand a man if you first insist on putting a mask on him. About 2,500 years ago, Sun Tzu recognized the folly of that. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. JP said: quote: But isn't that exactly the point, JP? Was Queen Isabella as sure of her "facts" in 1490 as many people seem to be today? If asked to prove her facts, how would she have responded? "Well, everyone knows the Earth is flat. It's a fact." Gee, that kinda sounds familiar, doesn't it? Deductions and hearsay may be true, but that alone doesn't make them facts. Have you personally seen our planet from outer space? How do you know, for a fact, that it is spherical? Can you show me the math that proves it? Those things we often tout as facts are as much a reflection of our trust as they are of truth. We believe the Earth is spherical because we trust the people who have repeatedly told us it is spherical. We trust the consensus (just as did Isabella), and we trust science (just as did Isabella). And I dare say, by and large, science has earned our trust. But is it really so surprising, when it comes to politics and society, that the consensus isn't always unanimous and the trust isn't always so easy to give? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Ron, I did read the Al Capone book and that is exactly how he did feel. Not only that but, if you go through history, I think you will find that every "evil" personage could justify their actions to themselves. Hitler did not believe he was evil but that he was doing the best for Germany and the Aryan race. DIllinger felt he was striking a blow for the little man. If you go down the list through Stalin, Mao and Jeffrey Dalhmer, they will all come up with justifications of why they were so misunderstood. So what? That is the main problem with hush's idea to sit Hussein down, convince him that killing is not good and have him change into a responsible decent human being. People who feel that their actions are not wrong and justifiable will not change....why should they? If I decide that, by killing people over 65 I am doing them a big favor by releasing them from the time they will get sick, have their bodies start failing them, go through the trauma to them and their families of hospital stays, operations, incapatation, loss of memory and faculties, all of these things which come, and with no solution since death is inevitable, wouldn't I be in essence their savior by saving their going through all these hardships? Does the fact that I can justify it make it acceptable? I doubt it. As you say, it's the actions that speak...not the self-justifications. Someone has to stand up and say "This is wrong". I think one of the biggest goofs of the judicial system was when they began allowing the "no contest" defense. That permits the defendants to be convicted and still not have to claim or accept their guilt. No one who refuses to acknowledge their guilt is ever going to change. Why should they since they are not wrong in their own mind? I do not see Hussein acknowledging his. As far as you example of facts and the Earth not being flat, I don't find that one of your better examples. By what facts did she base her assumptions that the earth was flat, that "there be dragons" at the edge of the earth? Obviously, none. We have seen that the earth is NOT flat through a variety of means. No, you're right, I haven't personally seen earth from outer space...does that mean I can ignore, or distrust, the photos and factual nature of those who have? Why should I? Should I only trust what my eyes have seen...period? Should I consider cancer a lie because I personally have never seen a chest open in front of me infected with cancer? Isabella had no facts at her disposal so she went by assumations. We have millions of facts at our disposal - yes, from others but documented. If we choose not to accept then because we personally haven't seen it then we may as well throw all textbooks and journals in the trash, since they all describe things we personally haven't seen. The earth is spherical. It is a fact now as it was a fact then. Now we have proof to support it as opposed to then when there was none...that doesn't change it just because most of us haven't seen it personally. A fact will always be a fact. Ask Ayn....she'll tell you |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
While I agree with the premise that there are many 'evil' men who feel justified in their actions -- I also know there are those who delight in atrocity for the sake of atrocity -- those who are so disconnected from the universe that they act out of pure spite. |
||
|
ShadowLost Junior Member
since 2001-06-23
Posts 43 |
If the US hates the middle east so much how did such a small part of the world become soo agressive and defensive towards us??? ~ShadowLost~ |
||
|
winston Member
since 2002-12-19
Posts 204NW of Eden |
Well, Denise, I've noticed that you've spelt despite as "depsite" here, that's un-yoozhal wudn't yo'say? As far as ah know I've never used the word "favour" on any of my posts but I mighta yoozed "color" as it's used in conventional AmericanEnglish.  I cude on the basis of cacography & cacology that I've countenanced at PIPtalk go on to say that nobody is American enough (as it's understood by the Injuns). hush, "" these before and after a word has an objectival purpose when spicking of emotive words. So, I can't quite intuit what was your point. My good Balladeer, as far as I know I've not insulted anybody here. Neither have I expressed "hate" or "anger". It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, & incumbency. --G. "DUBYA" BUSH. June 14, 2001. Unaware of rolling TV camera. [This message has been edited by winston (03-10-2003 02:53 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
So much for a straight answer to a straight question. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Balladeer quote: I’m the King of England. Is that a fact? Most people would agree that it isn’t but supposing tomorrow it was discovered that I had a legitimate claim to the throne and at some point in the future I was actually crowned king, would it be a fact then? Of course it would, just to complicate things though let’s say that three days after my coronation it was discovered that a mistake had been made and I abdicated, would it be a fact at that point? Facts are dictated by the perceived truth at any given time and truth is based upon the best information available, an absolute fact requires an absolute truth - which has never existed. Unconvinced? The earth moves around the Sun This has to be a cast iron example of an absolute fact, right? At this point in time it is a fact and has been for a fair few years but it hasn’t always been so and it will not be a fact at some point in the future. It is an indisputable fact the Hussein has used biological weapons to murder civilians. The truth-value attributable to this statement is either true or false, he either did it or he didn’t, let’s imagine for a moment that almost all the evidence we look at leads us to believe he did do it (not much imagination needed I agree). Does that mean he actually did do it or that based upon the evidence we have seen we believe he did? You said earlier (paraphrasing here) that it didn’t matter what evidence we thought we had a fact was a fact only if it was true. If your assertion is correct all the evidence in the world is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether he did it or didn’t do it. In that case: It is an indisputable fact the Hussein has not used biological weapons to murder civilians. Is as valid a fact as any other until we know the truth, which is why “beyond reasonable doubt” is often used in places where truth is the target. By the way, as I’ve said before, I believe he did use chemical weapons to kill civilians but I also accept I might be wrong. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: No, of course not, Michael. But neither should you call everything that everyone tells you a fact. Remember when professors at the University of Utah announced their "successful" cold fusion experiments in 1989? Fleischmann and Pons ended up standing before the US House Science, Space and Technology committee asking for $25 million to fund a center for cold fusion … and almost got it. Science, for a few moments of current history, lied to us and the press gleefully perpetuated the lie. And yes, that tawdry incident hurt the credibility of scientists everywhere. Now, you want to talk about how many times a politician has lied to us? Sans personal knowledge, a fact is only as credible as the source. My trust in science is less than a hundred percent, my trust in the press is quite a bit less than a hundred percent, and my trust in politicians evaporated over thirty years ago. I don't personally have knowledge of what Iraq has in its arsenal, nor do I know how Iraq intends to use what it has. I have to trust others for that information. And, to a large extent, I do. But please forgive me if I call it information instead of facts. BTW, Isabella knew the Earth was round in 1490, as did most of the literate world. I was just playing off of JP's words, and making liberal use of literary license in doing so. The real question when Columbus set sail wasn't whether he would fall off the edge, but how long the journey would take. Science knew the Earth was round, but there were huge disagreements about how big it was. Still, your question is a valid one, because a hundred years earlier, everyone DID believe the Earth was flat. On what "facts" did they base that assumption? Fact: Everywhere they walked was flat. Fact: Every ocean they traveled was flat. Fact: For as far as the human eye could see, the land was flat. If you're honest with yourself, those are pretty persuasive facts. If I had to live in Iowa, they might still be pretty persuasive. quote: I have absolutely no interest in changing Sadam Hussein. I would like to understand him. Maybe human nature is such that we can never really prevent the kind of debacle that is current events. Maybe the next ruler we sell arms to will, a few decades hence, become our next national nightmare. Maybe. But I also believe Sun Tzu, in his Art of War, was right on probably more levels than even he realized. Know thine enemy. We cannot defeat Sadam Hussein unless we first know what drives him, what justifications he finds for himself, what viewpoint he hold towards us and the rest of the world. We can kill him, and it seems clear to me that we will, but without greater understanding, his death will not be his defeat. He will only rise again, with a new face, a new name, and exactly the same agenda. Understanding probably can't stop this from ever happening again. But it's the only weapon that might. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Winston....forgive me, I was not insinuating you were insulting to anyone here. Your responses are sincere and dignified. I was referring to the statement... "we can come to agree that Jebediah & Katherine Bush & their supporters in Florida are guilty of vote rigging." ...which struck me as being on the insulting side to those involved, not anyone here. My apologies for not being clearer... Eddie...yes, a fact is always a fact but that certainly doesn't mean that facts, based on actions or conditions, can never change. Those facts are always changing but, at the time they are true, they are the fact of the moment. Bush is president. That's a fact. In the future another will be president and that will also be a fact at that time. As far as the sun is concerned, I cannot recall the time the earth did not revolve around the sun and I sure as heck don't want to see the time in the future it does not, either.  But, should that time come then it will be a fact at that time. It will not change the fact that at this time it DID. Irrefutable proof is what makes a fact, not opinions or conclusions based on opinions. If the earth had, indeed, been flat at one time and could have been proven to be so then it would have been a fact at that time. Their opinion that it was flat without irrefutable proof to back that conclusion would not have made it a fact, only a consensus of opinion. It is certainly a fact that they believed so because we have the evidence to back that statement.Ron... "We can kill him, and it seems clear to me that we will, but without greater understanding, his death will not be his defeat. He will only rise again, with a new face, a new name, and exactly the same agenda. Understanding probably can't stop this from ever happening again. But it's the only weapon that might." Wise words, good sir. Personally, I feel that understanding is beyond our comprehension with the exception of the basis that his driving force is power and, as LR states, I also believe true evil does indeed exist. Other than that, it would be like my trying to discover how the mind of a child molestor works. How could I, not being able to relate to that type of mind? How could anyone? You want to find someone who can understand Hussein? Try Caligula or Stalin or Mao Tse Tung or someone who has walked in those shoes. They would understand him perfectly. Donald Trump would also be a good example, not that I have anything against The Donald (which I don't) but he has the same drive and ambition that motivates dictators except that he channels his into wheeling/dealing and making money instead of maintaining absolute power over an entire country. There have always been Husseins throughout history and there will always be. The only solution I can see is to stop them before they have the opportunity to begin...which would mean eliminating dictatorships, for one thing. I would think that the United Nations would be an excellent way maintaining this type of control. It's a wonderful idea - all of the major governments with all of their economic and military powers making sure that ruthless dictators do not have the ability to rule countries by torture, murder and intimidation. Makes sense to me...but what do we have? We have the U.N. but we still have countries with ruthless dictators who rule by fear over a powerless populace. How can that be? A true United Nations could eliminate this and ensure that no future Husseins are able to get their hands on this type of power. That is the only way to stop this recurring insanity which has surfaced every so often since recorded history began. There needs to be a world police force capable, and willing, to assume this role. On any other level, our understanding of this type of individual - which is unlikely - would not help. As grandma used to say - when you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. As soon as I am elected King of the Universe, I plan on putting my thoughts into action  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
JP, Wow, you took that really well. Of course you can be emotional, the only problem I have is that everyone is being 'emotional', on the Right and the Left. At another site (philosophyforums.com), I'm arguing against both. I don't know if I'm being any less emotional than anyone else, I just think people, everywhere, are running around looking for facts (reasons) to back up their conviction rather than the other way around. Can you do the other way around? Probably not, I don't have any problems with Michael's view of facts. It's easy to make the distinction between facts and our knowledge of facts (which is what Crazyeddie and Ron are arguing), but then of course you can't argue from the facts directly, you can only argue from our knowledge of facts. I don't think this contradicts Michael's point so much is deflate the rhetorically persuasive power of words like 'facts,' and 'truth'. But it still leaves the distinction between getting things right v. mistakes and outright deceit which is what I think he's shooting for here. And that's an important distinction to keep, for without it, we wouldn't be able to talk at all. But not only that, we have a further problem because all facts are not created equal. Some are more significant than others for whatever argument you want to make: There may have been a fly on the wall when Powell made his speech at the UN but it's not significant for what we're talking about. This isn't simply a matter of preference (which is apparent enough), we are finite creatures and we have to do this in order to make any argument at all. What does this have to do with the issue at hand? Probably not much, but maybe, just maybe, it opens up the possibility for more discussion. If we take the two positions here to extremes, we still end up with the same result (and I've said this enough times before, this shouldn't surprise anybody): 1. Facts are facts. You can't argue with facts. If you do, you must have an agenda, you must be distorting the truth for your own purposes. result: They are WRONG before they say anything. You don't have to listen to what other people have to say 2. Facts are subjective and malleable. My facts aren't your facts, we look at the world in fundamentally different ways and there is no way you can ever see my view and vice versa. result: THEY are wrong before they say anything. You don't have to listen to what other people have to say. Now, these are caricatures of the actual positions taken, but the result is still the same: everybody's talking and nobody's listening. In the end, JP's response to me seems to be the right way to go. Make your statement, believe in it, defend it, but listen to what other people have to say. If they have a good argument or see a weak point in your own, use that and become stronger for it. We're not going convert anybody around here overnight and that's the way it should be. Indeed, the people to worry about are the ones who are converted overnight. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Balladeer- I'm not a particularly religous person, and the word evil has particularly religious connotations. In my opinion, calling Saddam evil is akin to Osama bin Laden calling Bush an infidel. Aside from that, though, I have other problems with the word. First of all, it polarizes completely. I'm not going to beat a dead horse, Ron made the point I wanted to make, and more clearly. Second of all, it's being touted as a catch-all justification for hatred of the "evildoers." Am I the only one who's noticed Bush basically admitting (bragging?) to our nation killing "suspected" terrorists in his recent speeches? The most notable one was at a Floriday naval base a few weeks ago, in fact I was going to start a thread about it but I couldn't find a transcript to quote from. Anyway, we have "arrested, or otherwise taken care of" them. Let him put it this way, "they won't be bothering us anymore." But, they're evil. They don't deserve trials to prove whether or not they are actual terrorists, our suspicion is enough. Can I explain a child molester's mind? A serial killer's? No... but it's something I'd like to try to do. I think most people are afraid to try to understand someone who is "evil." I think something you said supports my point: 'Other than that, it would be like my trying to discover how the mind of a child molestor works. How could I, not being able to relate to that type of mind? How could anyone? You want to find someone who can understand Hussein? Try Caligula or Stalin or Mao Tse Tung or someone who has walked in those shoes. They would understand him perfectly.' We cannot understand the evil mind. They (fellow evildoers) can. You're splitting people up into two groups (good and bad) and I think that's dangerous. The problem with that type of dualism is that we can never be different side by side... someone will always come out on top... look at these groups and think, historically, who has come out on top: Men and Women White and Colored Wealthy and Poor Educated and Uneducated Good and Evil We aren't two different species... believew it or not, you have something in common with Saddam, just as I have something in common with you. Everyone has a favorite food, a favorite color, movies, songs, and books that they like... it's part of what makes us human. I'm sure Saddam doesn't just sit in a dark room, tapping his fingers together Montgomery Burns style, diabolocally planning his next evil move... I read somewhere that he likes to swim. Hey, you know what? I like to swim too. There you go... I can relate to Saddam. I'm not ashamed, or afraid, to say that. However, I think there's a pretty rampant fear right now of being called unAmerican, and my point of view is not a popular one at family functions. I feel like I'm digressing, it's late and I'm tired, so I'm leaving it at that. Winston- go back, read my post. I said what I meant, and actually, you'll notice that your use of quotation marks was much more copious than mine. I got your message... what's good for the goose ain't good for the gander? Other people argued the second part of your strange approximation to a syllogism. I am arguing the foundation you are using. Your argument doesn't work- if your first argument is incorrect, your scond one is irrelevant. By the way, I'm guessing by your quote and your point of viwe that you've been reading Micheal Moore? Correct me if I'm wrong.. but I really does sound like you're kind of parroting him. While I like the guy, I really do, and his argument about the Florida polls is very convincing... I don't necessarily consider it totally valid. Now, I also don't have time to check up on the references he listed... I think it's a definite possibility, based both upon the information he gives and my recognition of his personal, extremely liberal agenda... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
There is a Confucian parable that goes something like this: "Master, what does it say of a man that all men like him?" the student asked. The master said, "That does not say enough. It says enough that the good people like him, and the bad do not." This kind of dualism is very important to civilization -- try to de-religion it. Good is what edifies culture and civilization -- ultimately peace and prosperity. If you think of it in those terms instead of a bearded omniscient God and a horny devil it will become clearer. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sorry, hush, I cannot accept your examples at all...which is ok because we are both entitled to our own way of thinking but I can see it will do no good to go on beating around (or on top of the head of) the Bush. You feel it is dangerous to classify as good and evil. I say it is more dangerous not to recognize evil. So be it....  |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Brad, well said. Facts are facts, or they would be called 'maybe a fact'. What seems to be the true topic is our interpretation of the facts, our POV when considering or ignoring the facts, our wishes of what the facts really should be, and our absolute confusion when trying to decide the best course of action when considering the facts. War sucks. Killing people really sucks, getting killed sucks almost as much as killing someone else. The whole mess is reprehensible and a terrible, terrible burdon to bear. But the fact is: Something is going to happen, most likely something horrid and soulcrushing. THAT is the fact we need to concern ourselves with. What do we do when events go where they will go? How do we love and support each other, our nation, our neighbors, our leaders, ourselves when the insanity of man bares is frightening head? Will we sleep better at night when our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers are embroiled in combat, if we blame someone for that combat? Will it help our hearts to curse the name of President Bush, or Saddam Hussein? I know it will not help me feel better. I do not like what I believe in my heart will and should happen. I will have to deal with that within myself, as will we all. Mr. Bush will have to deal with his demons as well (as I am sure he is doing nightly already), but he has my support, as my President, as a man whom I believe is doing what he thinks is right. He knows he will not get reelected, he knows he will not 'get free oil', he knows that this war will damage him politically, so I cannot believe he is being a warmonger (warmongers live for the battle and the gain from war - he will not fight and the only gain is security from a madman). The way I 'know' these things is because I am a man, a human being, and a citizen of the United States. If I recognize the politcal suicide in this affair then surely he and his many aides recognize it as well. Okay, I've run out of steam, my heart hurts, my head hurts, and my spirit is crying for what will and must come to pass. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Very well said, JP. I salute your love of country and dedication. Here is a letter from another soldier which voices many feelings I have, also... I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "Why didn't the Jews fight back?" Now I know why. I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself, "Why weren't we prepared?" Now I know why. Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people. On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors. On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers. I will not be manipulated. I will not pretend to understand. I will not forget. I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting. I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about him, he is still our president." I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented, "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington." And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't "likely -- nor should they be expected -- to show deference." I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America. I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications. I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration. I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly "Have your bags been under your control?" question at the airport. I will not be influenced by so-called, "antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the right of _expression to chant anti-American obscenities. I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by American war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines. I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose reassurance over reality. I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?" There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must! I will force myself to: -hear the weeping -feel the helplessness -imagine the terror -sense the panic -smell the burning flesh -experience the loss -remember the hatred. I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where did they find the courage?" Now I know. We have no choice. Living without liberty is not living. -- Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.) Not as lean, Not as mean, But still a Marine. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm reluctant to disagree with someone not here to defend themselves, which is just one of the reasons we prefer to post our own words and not those of others, but frankly, a letter like that makes me ashamed to be a former Marine. Have people completely stopped thinking? Forget the histrionics and oh-so-emotional drama. I can ignore rhetoric with the best of them. But the contradictions in this letter just befuddle me. 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." I guess consistency is a little too much to expect. Either good, patriotic Americans are allowed to criticize their politicians -- ALL their politicians -- or they're not. You don't get to have it both ways. Seriously. Have people completely stopped thinking? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I think they have, Ron. Emotions take over and logic and rationality seem to be the first casualities.... |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"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. And the media quips qouted are also facts. If you can't see the difference, then it is because your mind prevents you from seeing. [This message has been edited by Opeth (03-12-2003 09:20 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
There's nothing wrong with emotion. It's who we are. Our passions, more than any other thing, define the uniqueness of our lives. But reason should be what we are and serve to separate us from the animals. Name-calling is usually a sign of frustration. It's really tough right now to argue that Bush is wrong, and without a crystal ball it's impossible to prove he's wrong, but it takes very little effort to call him a warmongering idiot. Those who attack their opponents are pretty much admitting they can no longer argue the issues. They may not recognize their defeat, but they've already lost the battle. But that has to work both ways. Implications that people are somehow unpatriotic because they question the policies of their government simply constitute a different kind of name-calling. It's emotional blackmail. "If you don't agree with us, you must be a lousy American." In a country that was founded on political dissidence, bashing government figures is as American as apple pie and baseball, and far more important than either. Those who would have us follow our leaders blindly, without thinking for ourselves, are the ones who should probably question their patriotism. Because what they suggest sure isn't the America I love and honor. |
||
|
winston Member
since 2002-12-19
Posts 204NW of Eden |
darling Denise, honestly, you haven't asked a straight question. There are some people, in various parts of America, who would rather use "roach" instead of "cockroach." Are we to speak of the latter party's impudicity just because they enounce the entire word? If you wish to discuss this at length, over a cup of ice coffee, here's my address, 123 West 44th Street, I also live in 2387 Mountain Highway, Vancouver. The current political situation in our nation reminds me of what certain people went thro' during McCarthy's time in office. As a very concerned tax payer I don't think I should answer to anybody where my nationality is brought to doubt. hush has a point in saying that critical and individualistic thinking is considered "unAmerican" or "anti-American". Since when? The America that I know, and the America my father and grandfather fought for, the America that my cousin died for in the last Gulf war, was founded on critical and individualistic thinking that got us our independence from Europe and in particular the British Empire. Balladeer, thank you for thinking that am sincere and dignified. Your political views, as it is peacefully expressed here, shouldn't deter us from mutual respect. Big Brother Ron, as I have got prone to calling you, I do like the way you think, not least because of your Iowa remark. Now I ask you, what did the folks of Iowa do to you? It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, & incumbency. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"The current political situation in our nation reminds me of what certain people went thro' during McCarthy's time in office." ~ Not even close for many reasons which are so obvious, I won't even bother to list them. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"There's nothing wrong with emotion. It's who we are. Our passions, more than any other thing, define the uniqueness of our lives. But reason should be what we are and serve to separate us from the animals." ~ We should refrain from reasoning when the reasoning is based on emotion and not logic. Otherwise, I agree. "Name-calling is usually a sign of frustration. It's really tough right now to argue that Bush is wrong, and without a crystal ball it's impossible to prove he's wrong, but it takes very little effort to call him a warmongering idiot. Those who attack their opponents are pretty much admitting they can no longer argue the issues. They may not recognize their defeat, but they've already lost the battle." ~ I agree 100% Ad hominem pseudoreasoning in its many forms is the recognition of defeat by those who use it. And from all that I have witnessed in dealing with the isssue of war with Iraq, I must say, that those who are opposed to war have utilized this fallacy the most...and by far. "But that has to work both ways. Implications that people are somehow unpatriotic because they question the policies of their government simply constitute a different kind of name-calling. It's emotional blackmail. "If you don't agree with us, you must be a lousy American." ~ I believe every American has the right to protest, in a peaceful manner of course, however, I can still say that they are wrong when their reasons for protest are based on ad hominem attacks and not rational thoughts of why they believe in what they believe. However, those Americans who leave this country to protest against our country on foreign soil ~ that to me is a slap in the face to all who fought and died for this country and should not be a "right." Those protesters should be either prosecuted or expelled from this country. "In a country that was founded on political dissidence, bashing government figures is as American as apple pie and baseball, and far more important than either. Those who would have us follow our leaders blindly, without thinking for ourselves, are the ones who should probably question their patriotism. Because what they suggest sure isn't the America I love and honor." ~ I agree 100% |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: What does that mean? I am allowed the freedom to speak in South Korea but not America? What world do you live in? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"What world do you live in?" ~ There is only one possible world in which humans can live, if you know of another, please do tell. "What does that mean? I am allowed the freedom to speak in South Korea but not America?" ~ It means this - if Americans go over seas, to other countries, and organize demonstrations that are anti-U.S. government, especially if those Americans are in Iraq at this time organizing these types of demonstrations, then they should either be jailed or deported. Now, do you understand? What world do you live in? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Opeth, Given your statements, I no longer believe in the American military. My family is my family and I will kill anyone, North or South Korean, American or Russian, who dare touch what I hold dear. If Obeth is right, then America is wrong. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I have no idea what you mean by what you just posted. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
Maybe this is off-topic... but then... --------- Opeth says: However, those Americans who leave this country to protest against our country on foreign soil ~ that to me is a slap in the face to all who fought and died for this country and should not be a "right." Those protesters should be either prosecuted or expelled from this country. And this is how I read it: However, those Americans who leave this country (USA) to protest against our (the ones living in USA) country on foreign (NOT USA) soil ~ that to me is a slap in the face to all who fought and died for this country(USA) and should not be a "right." Those protesters should be either prosecuted or expelled from this country(USA). This could mean in Opeth’s stated opinion is that these Americans (who gave up USA for protesting), should be expelled (thus made non-Americans) or be prosecuted (under American laws?) Then I read the next response of Opeth: It means this - if Americans go over seas, to other countries(not USA), and organize demonstrations that are anti-U.S. government, especially if those Americans are in Iraq at this time organizing these types of demonstrations, then they should either be jailed or deported. Now, do you understand? --------- Now who should jail them? Or where should they be deported to? Jailed in Iraq; or Deported to USA OR Jailed in USA, or Deported to Iraq I see the two statements being quite contradictory… I hope my point is clear... --------- Moreover, I do not think that "protesting against a government (and hence directed to the political party in power) is a protest against the country." --------- I also wonder why would Americans need to go out of America to protest against the US govt. so that their voices are heard by the US govt.... Does the US govt. prefer not to hear these voices from within the country except during election preparations etc. Or are these voices being persecuted; that is definitely not the USA that I have heard about. But then I am not American; but I will most definitely be affected very adversely by the war. I am not here to debate the morality or legality of this or any other war; just to say that I did not understand the text. And just for the sake of mentioning: Long before the most unfortunate 11 september tragedy; around the time when the elections results of Bush being the president came out; most Europeans had openly begun counting down the days when the Bush led US govt. would try to find a reason to attack Iraq. It would have happened earlier; but most unfortunately 9/11 tragedy happened; that was a personal setback for Bush too, since he had a new issue at hand and couldn't yet look towards Iraq. However, once the Afghan operation sort of petered off (Captured bin laden or not, destroyed terror bases across the planet or not), he has now regained the focus over Iraq. With that all the goodwill generated has eroded. Thanks for letting me interrupt... Regards, Sudhir [This message has been edited by Sudhir Iyer (03-12-2003 11:56 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No idea? If you touch my family, I will kill you, you little wanna be. I'm an American. You are a wannabe. Grow up! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Sorry, I believe in America. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Now who should jail them? Or where should they be deported to? Jailed in Iraq; or Deported to USA OR Jailed in USA, or Deported to Iraq" ~ Of course I am speaking on the terms that these protesters return to U.S. soil, whereupon they should either be prosecuted or deported...and if they were in Iraq while protesting against the government, especially in a war time situation, which we in the U.S. are, howebeit a new kind of war - where the enemy is or may no longer be a nation and its government, but a network of terrorists who are aided and abetted by numerous nations, then they should be deported to that country. It is not American, for Americans to go to foreign soil to protest against the American government, which to the foreigner's eye and in reality, against America itself. To say that it is not, is to say that oral sex isn't sex, it is to say that being alone with someone in the same room isn't being alone because there are people outside of the room...in other words, it is illogical and playing on semantics. I am all for Americans protesting the American government HERE on our soil...that is a constitutional right, but to leave this country and SIDE with a nation, especially a nation that is an enemy to our country is reprehensible...and it makes me sick. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"If you touch my family, I will kill you, you little wanna be." ~ Say what? Why are bringing "family" into this matter? Me thinks you are about to have an emotional breakdown, like HAL told Dave, "Take a stress pill." "I'm an American. You are a wannabe. Grow up!" ~ Resorting to name calling? And you are telling me to grow up? Laughable! |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"...you little wanna be." ~ I bet I'm bigger than you. So, there [insert raspberry]. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Time out!  Aiding and abetting the enemy is treason and should be prosecuted. Standing in the way (ie. voluntary human shields) of U.S. action by U.S. citizens is certainly a good case for treason. Is this what you're referring to Opeth? If it is.. I agree. On the other hand -- Brad is an expatriate -- that doesn't abrogate his right to free speech. On the third hand -- if a U.S. citizen protests to the point of shutting down U.S. Military operations or bases here in the U.S. -- that's also a breach and is possibly aiding and abbetting. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-13-2003 01:04 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Winston, I wasn't calling your nationality into question. I believed you when you said you were American, although surprised at the time due to your style of spelling of certain words, (I was just using favour as a "for instance", I never said that you had ever actually used that particular word)which is decidedly not the American style (totally unrelated, I might add, to typos and regional bug name preference, but then I'm sure you really do realize that already) and was just wondering if you had been educated abroad, that's all. Is that not a straight question? I like coffee but not enough to travel that far just for a cup. Thanks anyway. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sudhir, I have always respected you and still do and I can only imagine what the prospect of war means to you and your family. My thoughts are with you. Having said that, however, I must say that your statement is one of the most irresponsible pieces of writing I have seen. "And just for the sake of mentioning: Long before the most unfortunate 11 september tragedy; around the time when the elections results of Bush being the president came out; most Europeans had openly begun counting down the days when the Bush led US govt. would try to find a reason to attack Iraq. " "It would have happened earlier; but most unfortunately 9/11 tragedy happened; that was a personal setback for Bush too, since he had a new issue at hand and couldn't yet look towards Iraq" MOST Europeans??? How many did you talk to out of the millions that are there? I doubt there would have been much news like that in the major newspapers or our news services would have gladly picked it up. This is certainly the first I've heard of that opinion and I would really like to know if you have a basis for that statement.... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: 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 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
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 Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
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 Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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: 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: 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: I remember those, they were disgusting and an embarrassment. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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 Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"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 Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Wow, this is a big concession: quote: 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: 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 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
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 Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"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 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: -But shouldn't questioning them include arming yourself with information? Else -- how does one ever make up one's mind? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"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 Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"*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 Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
'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 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Rebel- Never said I wasn't working on it... |
||
Brad Majors 
since 2001-04-03
Posts 2647Georgia |
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
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 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 |
||
|
Laicie Junior Member
since 2003-12-03
Posts 37Australia |
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
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
"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 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
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. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
