Is placing belief above facts an acceptable way to govern? [Archive]

Golgot

12-07-04, 10:47 AM

Ever notice that, whichever party is in power, we always have scores of character assessments and accusations based on unnamed sources and "senior officials," which never jive with what the administration is actually saying? We should probably have an actual source before we construct all sorts of elaborate criticisms, because it's pretty clear that people only heed the nameless sources when they like what they have to say.

And yes, Bush did give the middle finger, jokingly. I saw the video.

Well, the principle of protecting sources is an understandable, but abusable, media tradition. And a good one too - it allows party members and civil servants to go 'off-message', for a start.

In this case however, the source isn't deliberately criticising the admin, just accidently making it look bad. So there are two probable reasons for the name being withheld:
(1) the source doesn't want to admit that he said that -and let's face it Yods, no admin is ever going to officially declare itself unilateralist and out to do whatever it wants :rolleyes:
(2) It's an inaccurate quote and the journo thinks he'll get sued etc if he associates it with this high-level individual.

So let's compare the statement with the only thing we can - actions in the real world that might back it up or discredit it.

As far as i'm concerned there's ample evidence that the Bushies are strongly pursuing certain agendas despite the obstructions they run up against in the form of awkward realities, nation states or global structures that might be standing in their way. If i'm right about this (and i'll happily state my arguments again ;)), then this particular semi-anonymous statment 'jives' very well indeed with the admin's behaviour.

So yes, i agree that i already believe the Bush admin think along the lines stated in the quote - but only coz of prior evidence. And yes, i'm prepared to believe this is an accurate quote, and represents some of the internal thinking of the Bush admin - but again, only coz it tallies with their actions, not just coz i 'want' to believe it :p :)

EDIT: I guess at the end of the day i just want to discuss the realities - and i wanted the quote to be a catalyst for that ;).

Anonymous Last

12-07-04, 01:52 PM

;) - heard it from the same mate who was convinced that Kentucky Fried Chicken started in Preston, England ;)).
I don't like Kentucky Chucky.

*...and now back to your thread!*

Golgot

12-07-04, 04:52 PM

I don't like Kentucky Chucky.

*...and now back to your thread!*

'Preston Poultry' would be worse, trust me ;) (it'd be fish-n-chips disguised as chicken for a start :))

SamsoniteDelilah

12-07-04, 08:33 PM

-Just thinking about your own lives, do you think you should act on your beliefs no matter what the apparent facts, or should facts help shape your beliefs (and actions)?
A=A... no matter who says otherwise. We can re-write the history books, but the facts don't go away.

-Is the US really so powerful that it can do what it wants to all extents and purposes?
Riding roughshod over the basic rights of other nations is going to catch up with us. Right now, we're demanding credit at the point of a gun. Sooner or later, that's going to get well-deserved backlash, and our economy is going to pay a dear price.

-Is the US always right when it tries to do what it wants?
In some cases, yes. The idea of removing a mass murderer from power, for instance, was not a bad idea. Doing so unilaterally (which is the thrust of the article you've quoted) was not right, however. Nor was it the actual reason for the attack.

-Is placing belief above facts an acceptable way to govern?
It's nutty as a Mars bar.

Yoda

12-07-04, 09:38 PM

Well, the principle of protecting sources is an understandable, but abusable, media tradition. And a good one too - it allows party members and civil servants to go 'off-message', for a start.

In this case however, the source isn't deliberately criticising the admin, just accidently making it look bad. So there are two probable reasons for the name being withheld:
(1) the source doesn't want to admit that he said that -and let's face it Yods, no admin is ever going to officially declare itself unilateralist and out to do whatever it wants :rolleyes:
(2) It's an inaccurate quote and the journo thinks he'll get sued etc if he associates it with this high-level individual.

So let's compare the statement with the only thing we can - actions in the real world that might back it up or discredit it.

As far as i'm concerned there's ample evidence that the Bushies are strongly pursuing certain agendas despite the obstructions they run up against in the form of awkward realities, nation states or global structures that might be standing in their way. If i'm right about this (and i'll happily state my arguments again ;)), then this particular semi-anonymous statment 'jives' very well indeed with the admin's behaviour.

So yes, i agree that i already believe the Bush admin think along the lines stated in the quote - but only coz of prior evidence. And yes, i'm prepared to believe this is an accurate quote, and represents some of the internal thinking of the Bush admin - but again, only coz it tallies with their actions, not just coz i 'want' to believe it :p :) I think it only tallies with an exaggerated, caricaturized version of their actions. Acting unilaterally, for example, is not the same thing as acting imperially, but if you already think of the US as an imperial power, you'd easily see it as an example of that.

Also, the quotes from this source are almost comical...they're virtually indistinguishable from what Bush's most ardent, fringe opponents often claim he "really" thinks. I recall you saying you had an inherent distrust of things that "fit too well" -- if this doesn't qualify, what would?

EDIT: I guess at the end of the day i just want to discuss the realities - and i wanted the quote to be a catalyst for that ;). That I can understand.

Yoda

12-07-04, 09:49 PM

A=A... no matter who says otherwise. We can re-write the history books, but the facts don't go away. You're answering rhetorical questions, you know. :p The real debate is not over whether or not people should be disregarding facts (they shouldn't) -- the real debate is over what the facts actually are.

Riding roughshod over the basic rights of other nations is going to catch up with us. Right now, we're demanding credit at the point of a gun. Sooner or later, that's going to get well-deserved backlash, and our economy is going to pay a dear price. This is vague; what, specifically, are you saying, and what is it based on?

In some cases, yes. The idea of removing a mass murderer from power, for instance, was not a bad idea. Doing so unilaterally (which is the thrust of the article you've quoted) was not right, however. Nor was it the actual reason for the attack. There is not (and was not) a single reason for the invasion. You'd have to rewrite an awful lot of recent history to claim otherwise; from dozens of speeches and statements leading up to the war, to the name of the operation itself.

As for the fact that it was done unilaterally (which, as I'm sure you realize, is not at all literal, unless the world now consists primarily of the US, Russia, and France); I would ask what other option we had? The UN had not shown even the slightest indication that it might actually enforce its resolutions, and our most vocal opponents had an economic stake in their opposition. What plausible alternative to unilateral action did we have, then?

-Is placing belief above facts an acceptable way to govern?
It's nutty as a Mars bar.

nebbit

12-08-04, 04:56 AM

I love it when Yods and Gollygosh talk http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage21/20.gif

Tea Barking

12-08-04, 05:10 AM

A mars bar has nuts? :confused:

2wrongs

12-08-04, 01:38 PM

The Important News About Iraq That Has Gone Unreported
Amir Taheri, Arab News

For the past month or so, while the media have been obsessed with the activities of Moqtada Sadr and his fighters in Najaf, much of the really important news about Iraq has gone largely unreported.

This is not to blame television. After all the seizure of a holy shrine by a militia makes dramatic footage.

There is also the fact that nostalgics of pan-Arabism and pan-Islamists of all ilk, badly in need of a new cult figure, believe that they have found it in the person of the 30-year old Sadr.

Anyway, let us not begrudge Sadr’s 15 minutes of fame. The firework that he has provoked in Najaf is unlikely to be remembered either as the rebirth of pan-Arabism or as the revival of the Islamic caliphate in Baghdad.

All this does not mean that Sadr’s little show should not be covered. It should. After all, journalism, the realm of the ephemeral, seeks its daily fare in transient events.

Students of journalism, however, know the difference between the events that furnish most of the daily headlines and the undercurrents that shape the broader context of a society’s political life. Now what are the undercurrents that, with eyes fixed on the current events, are largely ignored?

The most important is that post-liberation Iraq, defying great odds, has succeeded in carrying out its political reform agenda on schedule. A governing council was set up at the time promised. It in turn, created a provisional government right on schedule. Next, municipal elections were held in almost all parts of the country. Then followed the drafting of a new democratic and pluralist constitution. Then came the formal end of the occupation and the appointing of a new interim government.

Earlier this month, the political reconstruction program reached a new high point with the convening of the National Congress.

Bringing together some 1300 men and women representing all ethnic, religious, linguistic and political groups, the congress was the first genuinely pluralistic assembly of Iraqis at that level.

The congress performed its duty by creating a 100-member Parliament with wide powers of oversight and control over the interim government. A close examination of the composition of this new interim Parliament shows that it is the most representative political body ever to take charge of Iraq’s destiny.

The formation of the interim Parliament, which will be at the heart of the nation’s politics during the next 15 months or so is a major step toward creating the institutions of democracy.

The Parliament’s tasks include the holding of elections for a constituent assembly, the supervision of a referendum on that constitution, and general elections to pick a new government; all that before the end of next year.

The events mentioned above, and largely ignored by the media, indicate a remarkably rapid progress toward democratization in Iraq. And, yet, at every step we had countless doomsayers who predicted that this or that step would not be taken because of “security problems.”

The truth is that Iraq did not enjoy security under Saddam Hussein either. This is because, while there can be no freedom without security, there is also no security without freedom.

Were the Juburi tribes secure under Saddam when he sent his special units to massacre them as an act of political revenge? How much security did the Shammar tribes enjoy when Saddam seized two-thirds of their land to distribute among his henchmen? And was it to give them security that Saddam transferred thousands of families from Mosul and Kirkuk in the north to central and southern Iraq? And these were all Sunni Muslims who were supposed to provide the principal base of his regime. As for the Shiites and the Kurds, the security they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein is symbolized by the mass graves that dot the Iraqi countryside, and the corpses strewn in the streets of Halabja after a chemical attack. And was it because they did not like security that almost four million Iraqis fled into exile during the Baathist rule?

The faceless gangsters who seize hostages, cut throats and kill women and children in streets are products of the culture of violence that successive despotic regimes generated in Iraq. The sole medium of expression they know is violence. They are convinced that he who is ready to kill the most has the best chance of winning power.

Thus what Iraq is experiencing now is a much bigger struggle, a cultural war, whose outcome will determine not only the future of that suffering nation but also the political prospects of almost all Arab countries.

On one side in this cultural war one finds the remnants of Saddamism, including Sadr who, although a victim of the tyrant, remains a Saddamite in terms of political practice. This side has been reinforced by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of non-Iraqi fascists who are determined to plunge Iraq into chaos.

On the other side of this cultural war one finds all those Iraqis who have understood that the politics of mass murder and terror is not the best that their nation could hope for.

To be sure, the two camps are not entirely black or white. On the side symbolized by Sadr, although he heads a small but noisy faction, one finds some sincere but misguided Iraqis.

The democratic camp in Iraq does not consist of choirboys either. Here one finds quite a few opportunists, job seekers, wheeler-dealers and outright crooks. Nor is the democratic process, as it has developed so far, beyond criticism.

On balance, however, it is in Iraq’s best interest, indeed in the best interest of the region and the world as a whole, that the democratic camp wins this cultural war.

The real story line in Iraq is stark, if not simple: A newly liberated nation is divided between those who wish to revive the despotic past, in one form or another, and those who have vague, at times conflicting, visions of a democratic future.

Behind the two Iraqi camps one also finds rival external forces. Some anti-democratic forces are determined to do all they can to prevent the establishment of a mould-breaking new regime in Baghdad. The democratic countries, on the other hand, are deeply divided on Iraq’s future.

Some have not yet recovered from the effects of the bitter debates of last year. Others maybe baulking at the prospect of commitment to a difficult project for years to come.

The big news, however, is that Iraq, for the first time since its existence as a country, has a choice. It is this big picture that is seldom noticed because of the media’s fixation with events of passing importance.

I'd say that people still trying to whine about the rights of the Iraqis have no clue in their head about what's really going on. Pull your heads up out of the sand and read more into the story than what your friends and your biased news sources tell you.

chicagofrog

12-08-04, 01:57 PM

What plausible alternative to unilateral action did we have, then?

NOT to attack a country when everybody knows that
1) terrorism didn't come from there
2) they had NO mass-murdering weapons hidden anywhere
??

as for the reasons for war, all over the world, like so-called "politics" nowadays, what rules, if not economy? this applies to France in Ivory Coast as well as USA in Middle-East...
in that last particular case, it's been said and re-said (and proven), "black money", i.e. oil. :sick:

2wrongs

12-08-04, 02:04 PM

NOT to attack a country when everybody knows that
1) terrorism didn't come from there
2) they had NO mass-murdering weapons hidden anywhere
??

ugh.
Did you look at the article I posted before you wrote this? Here's a good reason to go to war:

Freedom.

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 02:05 PM

You're answering rhetorical questions, you know. :p Yeah, I know. It seemed a more entertaining way to bump the thread than saying "bump". :)

The real debate is not over whether or not people should be disregarding facts (they shouldn't) -- the real debate is over what the facts actually are.
That's not the real debate raised by the quote Gg posted...

This is vague; what, specifically, are you saying, and what is it based on?
Specifically, I'm saying:
1. We're at war because Nixon took us off the gold standard, making our economy based more on our reputation than any objective measure which allowed the following to happen:
2. We have bolstered our economy through our control of oil and oil dollars and that went unchecked as long as no one was taking euros for oil. Which all changed when...
3. Iraq said, "screw the dollar, we'll take euros" and <bamf!> we declare war under the guise of protecting ourselves from iraqi nukes and a bunch of other stories that were equally unrelated.

Based on this (http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html).

There is not (and was not) a single reason for the invasion. You'd have to rewrite an awful lot of recent history to claim otherwise; from dozens of speeches and statements leading up to the war, to the name of the operation itself.
I didn't say there was. Others have said there was, and the reason they've given doesn't hold water.

As for the fact that it was done unilaterally (which, as I'm sure you realize, is not at all literal, unless the world now consists primarily of the US, Russia, and France); I would ask what other option we had? The UN had not shown even the slightest indication that it might actually enforce its resolutions, and our most vocal opponents had an economic stake in their opposition. What plausible alternative to unilateral action did we have, then?
Sit tight and wait til the inspections were finished.

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 02:07 PM

ugh.
Did you look at the article I posted before you wrote this? Here's a good reason to go to war:

Freedom.
:rotfl:

chicagofrog

12-08-04, 02:11 PM

ugh.
Did you look at the article I posted before you wrote this? Here's a good reason to go to war:

Freedom.

yep, did you look at all the other articles above in this thread?
nobody with some brains believe the reason to go to war was/is to free countries!!!!!! are only Yanks so naive nowadays?
if so, free Tibet and the Karens and the Ouigours and the Tchetchens!

2wrongs

12-08-04, 02:13 PM

:rotfl:
I'd say that people still trying to whine about the rights of the Iraqis have no clue in their head about what's really going on. Pull your heads up out of the sand and read more into the story than what your friends and your biased news sources tell you.

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 02:23 PM

Freedom.
http://w1.159.telia.com/~u15903031/039_15016.jpg

:rotfl:

Yoda

12-08-04, 02:23 PM

NOT to attack a country when everybody knows that
1) terrorism didn't come from there
2) they had NO mass-murdering weapons hidden anywhere
?? 1) Hussein has openly supported terrorist activities. Al Qaeda, believe it or not, is not the only terrorist organization in the world.

2) Since when did "everybody" no they had no WMDs? If you look at past statements and reports, it seems, actually, that "everybody" thought they DID, from the previous administration, to various foreign intelligence services.

as for the reasons for war, all over the world, like so-called "politics" nowadays, what rules, if not economy? this applies to France in Ivory Coast as well as USA in Middle-East...
in that last particular case, it's been said and re-said (and proven), "black money", i.e. oil. :sick: It's be said and re-said alright, but by no means "proven."

2wrongs

12-08-04, 02:30 PM

http://w1.159.telia.com/~u15903031/039_15016.jpg

:rotfl:
You know what? William Wallace is a hero for what he did so I find it really sick that you would belittle the movie and the story behind the movie in that way. Poor form.

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this. They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good. Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony. Others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from the unearned guilt they harbor living in a nation of prosperity and wealth, try to buy morality on the cheap by pronouncing themselves for the 'good'. To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent - regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel.

These leftists usually carry the loudest megaphones. And left unchallenged, their voices are heard disproportionately, demoralizing our troops, and emboldening dictators around the world - dictators who dream of the day the "Great Satan" disappears from the face of the earth.

However, their self-righteous messages go silent quickly when the truth of history and reality is thrown back in their face. It's time to turn up the juice on OUR megaphones, as we will never keep our supreme values of liberty and justice without the will to fight for them.~ Protest Warrior's mission statement.

bottom line: When are you moving to Canada?

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 02:32 PM

2wrongs

12-08-04, 02:39 PM

Not all Americans are so naive.
:laugh:

:rolleyes:

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 02:39 PM

"...blah blah blah, war is cool, if you don't like it, move to Canada..."
One Tin Soldier

Listen, children, to a story
That was written long ago,
'Bout a kingdom on a mountain
And the valley-folk below.

On the mountain was a treasure
Buried deep beneath the stone,
And the valley-people swore
They'd have it for their very own.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

So the people of the valley
Sent a message up the hill,
Asking for the buried treasure,
Tons of gold for which they'd kill.

Came an answer from the kingdom,
"With our brothers we will share
All the secrets of our mountain,
All the riches buried there."

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Now the valley cried with anger,
"Mount your horses! Draw your sword!"
And they killed the mountain-people,
So they won their just reward.

Now they stood beside the treasure,
On the mountain, dark and red.
Turned the stone and looked beneath it...
"Peace on Earth" was all it said.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Yoda

12-08-04, 02:40 PM

That's not the real debate raised by the quote Gg posted... If the quote is the only thing we're discussing, then there's no real "debate." It's just a discussion about how right Gol, you, et al, are, substantiated by yet another nameless source.

Specifically, I'm saying:
1. We're at war because Nixon took us off the gold standard, making our economy based more on our reputation than any objective measure which allowed the following to happen:
2. We have bolstered our economy through our control of oil and oil dollars and that went unchecked as long as no one was taking euros for oil. Which all changed when...
3. Iraq said, "screw the dollar, we'll take euros" and <bamf!> we declare war under the guise of protecting ourselves from iraqi nukes and a bunch of other stories that were equally unrelated.

Based on this (http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Epdscott/iraq.html). Oh yes, I'm fairly familiar with this. It's the latest craze: our economy's success it not due to incredible innovation or economic freedom (pshaw! Perish the thought; total coincidence), but some kind of gangster-like manipulation of the oil trade.

The value of the dollar is determined primarily by how many of the things we print; plain and simple. Supply and demand applies in terms of currency, as well. People's willingness to invest in the dollar correlates with its stability (predictability is a prerequisite for investment). Use in the oil trade is the RESULT of that stability, not the CAUSE of it.

I didn't say there was. Others have said there was, and the reason they've given doesn't hold water. The thing is that even if the "real" reason was not put on display, that would only serve as an argument against the character of those in power, and not against the action itself.

Either way, we have a military action which is 1) charitable, 2) in our interest, 3) consistent with the stated goals of the war on terror.

Sit tight and wait til the inspections were finished. Which would have resulted in what? Either it would have been inconclusive (in which case we're back where we started), or we'd reach the conclusion that they had no weapons, in which case Saddam remains in power.

Once again, we have an instance in which the overthrowing of a dictator is only supported in theory; not in any actual real-world scenario. Under what you're proposing, Hussein would just be another awful dictator that everyone thinks we ought to do something about, but woe is he who actually DOES do something about it.

chicagofrog

12-08-04, 02:41 PM

It's be said and re-said alright, but by no means "proven."

but Yoda, i admire ideals and all just like you, but i consider common sense to be conscious that all governments, the American included, have acted in the past and still act today in their own interest. the opposite would be nice, but illogical. unfortunately, no government - i wish they did - ever acted purely altruistically.
if they did, why wouldn't they have freed Tibet and the about 1000 other nations/peoples that are not still free today?
it is not in the interest of the US, or the French, etc. to do so. and predominantly, it's an economic interest.
and informed people all over the world analyzed already years ago the decline of the political versus the economical, the latter prevailing always more. and that applies to governments and their reasons to act too.
when i speak of naivety, i mean the one believing yr "sacred, god-adoring and -adored country" (pff!) would be an exception.

Yoda

12-08-04, 02:46 PM

yep, did you look at all the other articles above in this thread?
nobody with some brains believe the reason to go to war was/is to free countries!!!!!! are only Yanks so naive nowadays?p/
if so, free Tibet and the Karens and the Ouigours and the Tchetchens! Once again, the argument centers around motivation rather than the result, despite the fact that the former is speculative, and the latter objective. I don't suppose you've considered the possibility that invading Iraq was both morally right AND in our own interest? Surely this is easy to grasp; it's no more nuanced than one of John Kerry's coughs.

Whether or not freedom was THE goal, it is certainly A goal, and an expected byproduct of overthrowing a dictatorship. Thus, there is nothing "naive" about citing it as justification. It seems that those who oppose the war are more concerned with undercutting those who waged it than putting forward a genuinely compelling argument against the action itself.

Not all Americans are so naive. True. Some, in fact, are so intent not to be seen as naive that they've become jaded, instead.

Yoda

12-08-04, 02:49 PM

but Yoda, i admire ideals and all just like you, but i consider common sense to be conscious that all governments, the American included, have acted in the past and still act today in their own interest. the opposite would be nice, but illogical. unfortunately, no government - i wish they did - ever acted purely altruistically.
if they did, why wouldn't they have freed Tibet and the about 1000 other nations/peoples that are not still free today?
it is not in the interest of the US, or the French, etc. to do so. and predominantly, it's an economic interest.
and informed people all over the world analyzed already years ago the decline of the political versus the economical, the latter prevailing always more. and that applies to governments and their reasons to act too.
when i speak of naivety, i mean the one believing yr "sacred, god-adoring and -adored country" (pff!) would be an exception.See my above post. What you're saying is true; altruism is very rarely enough. A country often needs to have a self-interest as well to endure the horrors of warfare. Iraq is a place where our self-interest and the "right thing" overlap substantially. On what grounds, then, is opposition to the war based?

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 02:52 PM

...The value of the dollar is determined primarily by how many of the things we print; plain and simple.
We don't exist in a vaccuum.

Either way, we have a military action which is 1) charitable, 2) in our interest, 3) consistent with the stated goals of the war on terror.
:eek: We created #3, painted it with a brittle layer of #1 in order to mask the fact that we do #2, just like everybody else does.
And other countries are getting pretty tired of us doing #2 on them.
If you follow me.

Which would have resulted in what?
Respect from the world community.

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 02:56 PM

...True. Some, in fact, are so intent not to be seen as naive that they've become jaded, instead.
I've made a royal ass of myself on more than enough occasions to demonstrate that I don't pay much heed to how I'm percieved. I do desire not to BE naive, though, and I have learned that the pomp and rhetoric we're being fed is very often a cover for much less noble dealings. That doesn't mean I don't love my country. Loving anything means accepting it as it is, no? You don't do that by pretending it's something that it isn't. And what this country isn't is altruistic.

Anonymous Last

12-08-04, 02:58 PM

I'm sorry...but I'm going to crap in this thread again.

"Jesus I haven't been this bored since I played monopoly in the dark with retarded children."

Thought it was funny...

Now back to your same Bat time...same Bat channel.

Yoda

12-08-04, 03:03 PM

We don't exist in a vaccuum. Huh? The value of a currency is determined primarily by how much of it exists, and people's willingness to invest in a particular currency is determined primarily by stability. I was unaware that there was any debate over these two points.

:eek: We created #3, painted it with a brittle layer of #1 in order to mask the fact that we do #2, just like everybody else does.
And other countries are getting pretty tired of us doing #2 on them.
If you follow me. If "everybody else" does it, then why is it so horrid when we do, and what right would "everybody else" have for resenting us for doing so?

Respect from the world community. As well as the often-threatened by still unimpeded dictatorship in Iraq. Sanctions would have continued to harm Iraqi civilians, and the UN would continue to threaten a despot with many highly menacing pieces of paper. Your talk about how overthrowing Hussein is a good thing, then, is ultimately just lip service, isn't it?

Why is it that when the US acts in its own self-interest, it receives your scorn, but when countries like France and Russia do so (by opposing the war in Iraq, for example), we should strive for their respect?

OG-

12-08-04, 03:04 PM

I don't plan on getting into this arguement about Iraq as it is as fruitless as what people are still arguing about, but I would like to chime in my two cents about the post which started this thread.

Has anyone not realized how incredibly badass of a quote that is and how it doesn't really line up with the manner in which Bush officials speak, which leads me to believe it is incredibly hyperbolic. I personally think Bush and his adminstration would believe those sentiments, but I can't even imagine anyone putting those thoughts into such an eloquent and commanding statement on the fly. And it isn't just because I think the Bush Administration is full of morons, it's that that qoute is simply that badass. If someone did really say that, then more power to them for having the ability to say something that fiction writers would have spent months trying to come up with.

Secondly, in conjunction with what the actual message of the quote is I think everyone should watch the reair of last night's Daily Show (tonight at 7pm est.) as the guest brings out some very good points about the very stance of the Bush Administration on reality versus perception.

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 03:06 PM

2wrongs.... you can take all the swipes at my rep you want to, kid. Your mindless cheerleading still isn't going to add up to a cogent arguement.

2wrongs

12-08-04, 03:13 PM

Once again, we have an instance in which the overthrowing of a dictator is only supported in theory; not in any actual real-world scenario. Under what you're proposing, Hussein would just be another awful dictator that everyone thinks we ought to do something about, but woe is he who actually DOES do something about it.
Exactly.
and no Sam, I don't think war is "cool". I think war solves problems when all other ways of dealing with those problems have been exausted. How long do you sit around and "talk" about situations before you realise that in order to put some strength in the words and the threats, you have to fight to back them up?

If my son were being picked on at school physically, I would instruct him to tell the bully to leave him alone or else he would tell a teacher. If that didn't make the bully stop, I would then tell my son to tell the teacher. If the teacher was unable to keep this bully's hands off my child, I'd track the kid down, learn his name, call his parents and tell them that if their kid didn't keep their hands to themselves, I would give my son permission to fight back.
If the bully is still stupid enough to not take the threats seriously, then he would deserve the wrath my son has stored up for him.

2wrongs

12-08-04, 03:15 PM

2wrongs.... you can take all the swipes at my rep you want to, kid. Your mindless cheerleading still isn't going to add up to a cogent arguement.
so says you.

Yoda

12-08-04, 03:17 PM

I've made a royal ass of myself on more than enough occasions to demonstrate that I don't pay much heed to how I'm percieved. I do desire not to BE naive, though, and I have learned that the pomp and rhetoric we're being fed is very often a cover for much less noble dealings. That doesn't mean I don't love my country. Loving anything means accepting it as it is, no? You don't do that by pretending it's something that it isn't. And what this country isn't is altruistic. I am not suggesting that you do not love your country; Lewis said that love can forgive mistakes and love in spite of them, but that it "never ceases to will their removal."

I am also not suggesting that America is acting wholly out of the goodness of its heart. The idea is silly, to be sure. But so is the opposite idea, which has it squeezing oil out of hapless third-world countries simply because it can.

What I don't understand is why an altruistic action (which benefits only the receiver) is praiseworthy, but an action which benefits both sides is frowned on, especially when self-interest is an inescapable fact, as you've pointed out. The President's duty, first and foremost, is to look out for the citizens of the United States. Shouldn't he get EXTRA points, then, for doing something which is in our interest, but also frees millions of people?

OG-

12-08-04, 03:30 PM

Once again, we have an instance in which the overthrowing of a dictator is only supported in theory; not in any actual real-world scenario. Under what you're proposing, Hussein would just be another awful dictator that everyone thinks we ought to do something about, but woe is he who actually DOES do something about it.

I said I wouldn't get involved in the Iraq thing, but I feel the need to point out something here. I believe every single person in the world knows that what was going on in Iraq needed some fixing, but here is where we're different. You're criticizing people for believing in something in theory but not in execution. How can you make such an accusation when it relates to Iraq but turn your back on that logic when it comes to issues such as stem cell research because of your moral opposition to it. I'm sure you're against people dying when they don't need to be and you're all for finding cures to the diseases, but when you actively oppose methods which are HUGE advancements in that war because you feel it is dehumanizing life, well that is just incredibly hypocritical. That is an identical instance of being for something in THEORY but not when someone actually DOES something about it.

So until you, or anyone else, is ready to turn that spotlight of a statement on their own beliefs, you really should abstain from using it to judge someone elses.

Yoda

12-08-04, 03:40 PM

I said I wouldn't get involved in the Iraq thing, but I feel the need to point out something here. I believe every single person in the world knows that what was going on in Iraq needed some fixing, but here is where we're different. You're criticizing people for believing in something in theory but not in execution. How can you make such an accusation when it relates to Iraq but turn your back on that logic when it comes to issues such as stem cell research because of your moral opposition to it. I'm sure you're against people dying when they don't need to be and you're all for finding cures to the diseases, but when you actively oppose methods which are HUGE advancements in that war because you feel it is dehumanizing life, well that is just incredibly hypocritical. That is an identical instance of being for something in THEORY but not when someone actually DOES something about it.

So until you, or anyone else, is ready to turn that spotlight of a statement on their own beliefs, you really should abstain from using it to judge someone elses. It is nowhere near an "identical instance." There is actually a fundamental difference between the two: stem cell research is not the only way to cure diseases. I am opposing one of many methods used to achieve the goal of curing disease. Those who oppose the war, however, are unable to present any other method by which we could have realistically removed Hussein. If stem cell research presented the only way by which we could achieve medical breakthroughs, then the two would be akin.

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 03:45 PM

... What I don't understand is why an altruistic action (which benefits only the receiver) is praiseworthy, but an action which benefits both sides is frowned on,
War only benefits the ones who survive it. It's not much of a benefit to those who died. And if you justify their deaths by pointing out that they chose to leave a tyrant in power, consider the last US election and where that leaves us, in light of the quote at the start of this thread.

...The President's duty, first and foremost, is to look out for the citizens of the United States. Shouldn't he get EXTRA points, then, for doing something which is in our interest, but also frees millions of people?
The US should not put our best interest above the lives of other people. Nor should we ditch our alliances because they refuse to support us in doing so. Extra points for alienating the rest of the world? Uhm... no.

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 03:47 PM

OG-

12-08-04, 03:48 PM

It is nowhere near an "identical instance." There is actually a fundamental difference between the two: stem cell research is not the only way to cure diseases. I am opposing one of many methods used to achieve the goal of curing disease. Those who oppose the war, however, are unable to present any other method by which we could have realistically removed Hussein. If stem cell research presented the only way by which we could achieve medical breakthroughs, then the two would be akin.

You should probably go do some reading up on stem cell research and why it is the only method of curing dozens of diseases; alzheimers and almost all forms of paralysis just to name two.

There isn't a single thing that exists that does what a stem cell does, which is why it is not often the only way to cure something, but simply the best way to do so.

If it is only one of many methods, why is it the only one that produces any tangible results? First you have to understand how certain diseases work, then you'll understand why stem cells are the only possible things that can yield a cure.

War was possibly the only realistic way to remove Sadam, but I fail to see how a war indepdent of global support is going to do any better of a job than one that does have global support.

2wrongs

12-08-04, 03:54 PM

War only benefits the ones who survive it. It's not much of a benefit to those who died. So what does that statement say about the people who gave their lives for the cause? Nice downplaying the duty of soldier.
No one would sign up for the military with that dogma. Why should I fight? It doesn't benefit me.

Yoda

12-08-04, 03:54 PM

War only benefits the ones who survive it. It's not much of a benefit to those who died. And if you justify their deaths by pointing out that they chose to leave a tyrant in power, consider the last US election and where that leaves us, in light of the quote at the start of this thread. That rationale applies to all war. More important, though, is that you're also erroneously assuming that inaction did not also result in the loss of life. It did.

The US should not put our best interest above the lives of other people. Given the incredibly detrimental (and sometimes fatal) effects of the sanctions on Iraqis, isn't that exactly what other countries were doing by OPPOSING the war? It was really just a more gradual (and more long-term) loss of life.

Nor should we ditch our alliances because they refuse to support us in doing so. Extra points for alienating the rest of the world? Uhm... no. This simply brings us back to the questions I asked in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=219141&postcount=35). You've got to choose: either we're all to be chastised for a failure to live up to an idealistic, altruistic standard of behavior, or else we should be judged by the same cold, hard, realistic self-interest that you're so eager to justify other nations' actions with.

Yoda

12-08-04, 03:56 PM

If removing Hussein were really the reason for our action, we could have had him assassinated. It would have been no less 'against the law' than this war. "Removing Hussein" is really shorthand for "overthrowing the dictatorship." Saddam, as you surely remember, had two very well-known sons. The man himself was not the only problem; the strangehold he and his government had on the country was. None of this, however, speaks to the attempted equation of the war with stem cell research.

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 03:56 PM

So what does that statement say about the people who gave their lives for the cause? Nice downplaying the duty of soldier.
No one would sign up for the military with that dogma. Why should I fight? It doesn't benefit me.
You know... two days ago you were in OG's forum whinging that people turn debates in to nasty exchanges... and here you are taking everything I say and trying to spin it like I'm the antichrist. Stop and think.

Yoda

12-08-04, 04:00 PM

You should probably go do some reading up on stem cell research and why it is the only method of curing dozens of diseases; alzheimers and almost all forms of paralysis just to name two.

There isn't a single thing that exists that does what a stem cell does, which is why it is not often the only way to cure something, but simply the best way to do so.

If it is only one of many methods, why is it the only one that produces any tangible results? First you have to understand how certain diseases work, then you'll understand why stem cells are the only possible things that can yield a cure. While I don't claim to be an expert on stem cells, I've read enough to know that this isn't entirely true. There is said to be great hope and potential for cures resulting from stem cell research, but it is not the ironclad certainty that you present, and even if it was, it would not change my point, which is that it is not the sole means by which we arrive at cures. It may be superior, it may be significantly so, but to oppose stem cell research is not the same as to oppose the cure of diseases, because other methods exist. The same cannot be said for the removal of Hussein. If you have a plausible alternative scenario under which he could have been removed, I'd like to hear it.

War was possibly the only realistic way to remove Sadam, but I fail to see how a war indepdent of global support is going to do any better of a job than one that does have global support. It's not. Bush himself has said that global support is desirable for such an action; but it is not a prerequisite for it. That's the difference. It is desirable, but not a contingent, because if it was no action would have been taken.

Anonymous Last

12-08-04, 04:03 PM

I liked the show Band Of Brothers...it was a good one.

5/5

Sorry again!
Back to more hair pulling!

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 04:09 PM

That rationale applies to all war. More important, though, is that you're also erroneously assuming that inaction did not also result in the loss of life. It did.
Where did I say that I thought that?

Given the incredibly detrimental (and sometimes fatal) effects of the sanctions on Iraqis, isn't that exactly what other countries were doing by OPPOSING the war? It was really just a more gradual (and more long-term) loss of life.Life itself involves loss of life. But the slower it happens, the more people are... you know... alive.

This simply brings us back to the questions I asked in this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=219141&postcount=35). You've got to choose: either we're all to be chastised for a failure to live up to an idealistic, altruistic standard of behavior, or else we should be judged by the same cold, hard, realistic self-interest that you're so eager to justify other nations' actions with.
I love your little binary sets, Yoda. They're so carefully constructed. :)
This one dosn't actually hold two options, it's so well-crafted. I don't think I have to chose either option, since what I'm on about has to do with our claims to be altrustic when we're actually not. That's hypocracy and it was used to lead our country into war under false pretenses. It's not rocket science to see that that's not virtuous.

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 04:13 PM

Back to more hair pulling!
ONE person is running around biting people, but most of us in this thread are just discussing ideas. One of the reasons I came to this forum was for the intellectual stimulation of disagreeing with Yoda. :)

Yoda

12-08-04, 04:26 PM

Where did I say that I thought that? You say it implicitly in opposing the war on the grounds that we "should not put our best interest above the lives of other people."

Actually, given that you obviously believe a lack of respect from the rest of the world is counterproductive, wouldn't you believe that it was not really in our interest to invade at all? And if so, wouldn't that make the failure to invade (and thus the continued use of sanctions on the Iraqi people) an instance of us putting "our best interest above the lives of other people"?

Life itself involves loss of life. But the slower it happens, the more people are... you know... alive. I'm not sure what you're saying here, exactly. Why is loss of life more acceptable when it's spread out over time, and done so at the whim of a dictator, than when it happens in a shorter period of time, in order to (among other things) establish a free society?

I love your little binary sets, Yoda. They're so carefully constructed. :)
This one dosn't actually hold two options, it's so well-crafted. I don't think I have to chose either option, since what I'm on about has to do with our claims to be altrustic when we're actually not. That's hypocracy and it was used to lead our country into war under false pretenses. It's not rocket science to see that that's not virtuous. Actually, you're on about two things: 1) the way in which the war was sold, and 2) the "loss of respect" from foreign countries.

The first is not a basis for opposition to the war; only the way in which it was explained. So that's out, because you clearly DO oppose the action itself, and not just its stated rationale.

The second is subject to the contradiction I mentioned, and the questions I linked to about why we should strive for the respect of nations who are acting in the same spirit of self-interest you look down on when the US employs it.

Yoda

12-08-04, 04:27 PM

ONE person is running around biting people, but most of us in this thread are just discussing ideas. Eh, I dunno. I thought the bully example was pretty good. I do not think world bodies like the UN should be in the habit of making threats they have no intention of following through on.

One of the reasons I came to this forum was for the intellectual stimulation of disagreeing with Yoda. :) Don't forget the incredible tedium.

Anonymous Last

12-08-04, 04:31 PM

ONE person is running around biting people, but most of us in this thread are just discussing ideas. One of the reasons I came to this forum was for the intellectual stimulation of disagreeing with Yoda. :)

Who's Yoda?

*waving at a person they call Chris*
Don't hate me Mr. Yoda sir!

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 04:40 PM

Eh, I dunno. I thought the bully example was pretty good. I do not think world bodies like the UN should be in the habit of making threats they have no intention of following through on.
Here's why it's not: Iraq wasn't bullying us.

Don't forget the incredible tedium.
:laugh:

I haven't. :indifferent:

2wrongs

12-08-04, 04:58 PM

Here's why it's not: Iraq wasn't bullying us.

You missed it. I wasn't talking about Iraq. I was talking about Saddam bullying his people. We were speaking on Iraq's behalf when we threatened him and talked about it and talked about it and talked about it...
now we're making good on what we said. We're making a stand for the little guy. I just think it's funny how distracted everyone can get over some paranoid ideas about oil. So distracted you can't see the faces of gratefullness on the faces of the Iraqi citizens when they are in the presence of the military fighting to free them from the bondage they've been in. One article quoted a man that was just thankful he didn't have to kiss the picture of Saddam every day without fear of being beheaded.

gummo

12-08-04, 04:59 PM

(off topic)

I liked the show Band Of Brothers...it was a good one.

5/5

Have you read the book? A friend just gave me it not long ago...

Anonymous Last

12-08-04, 05:05 PM

(off topic)

Have you read the book? A friend just gave me it not long ago...

No. Should I?

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 05:06 PM

You missed it. I wasn't talking about Iraq. I was talking about Saddam bullying his people. We were speaking on Iraq's behalf when we threatened him and talked about it and talked about it and talked about it...
now we're making good on what we said. We're making a stand for the little guy. I just think it's funny how distracted everyone can get over some paranoid ideas about oil. So distracted you can't see the faces of gratefullness on the faces of the Iraqi citizens when they are in the presence of the military fighting to free them from the bondage they've been in. One article quoted a man that was just thankful he didn't have to kiss the picture of Saddam every day without fear of being beheaded.
We are not the parents of Iraq, either.
And to pretend to be the parents of Iraq, so that we can maintain control of their assets, is crummy.

nebbit

12-08-04, 05:13 PM

Great debate guys http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage23/5.gif

2wrongs

12-08-04, 05:17 PM

We are not the parents of Iraq, either. Oh! Perfect, well then...I assume to believe that you think they'd be better off under his authority. With that, we should have left Germany to Hitler as well...no need for us to be fighting other people's battles even if we have the means and the capabilities. We have our own problems like too much food and not enough sex and scandal.
And to pretend to be the parents of Iraq, so that we can maintain control of their assets, is crummy.
I smell a consipiracy.....*sniff*

Anonymous Last

12-08-04, 05:19 PM

Great debate guys
You misspelled hair pulling!

That's why I'm here!

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 05:25 PM

Oh! Perfect, well then...I assume to believe that you think they'd be better off under his authority. With that, we should have left Germany to Hitler as well...no need for us to be fighting other people's battles even if we have the means and the capabilities. We have our own problems like too much food and not enough sex and scandal.

I smell a consipiracy.....*sniff*
Are you capable of reading what is actually written, without trying to turn it into an overblown accusation?
If you can't demonstrate that skill, then further conversation with you strikes me as entirely pointless.

Yoda

12-08-04, 05:27 PM

We are not the parents of Iraq, either.
And to pretend to be the parents of Iraq, so that we can maintain control of their assets, is crummy. Who is the parent of Iraq, then? If it's Saddam, he's an abusive parent. If it's the UN, it's a negligent parent. In keeping with the analogy, wouldn't both types of parents risk intervention from an outside source if they continued to act abusively or negligently?

2wrongs

12-08-04, 05:29 PM

We Okay... are not uh huh... the parents of Iraq, either. Hmmm...what did I miss?

Anonymous Last

12-08-04, 05:35 PM

Each and every one of you MoFos are so cute when you guys are serious. Kodak moment!

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 05:42 PM

Who is the parent of Iraq, then? If it's Saddam, he's an abusive parent. If it's the UN, it's a negligent parent. In keeping with the analogy, wouldn't both types of parents risk intervention from an outside source if they continued to act abusively or negligently?
Yes. But, and here's the thing, Greenguy... the intervening agency wouldn't take the kids' bank account.

2wrongs... "what did [you] miss?" Logic 101. (ooooh! burn!!) :p

Anonymous Last

12-08-04, 05:51 PM

Yeah....well I know this cool story about a wounded bear and he scratched people in the city or something.

Pimp tells it better!

SamsoniteDelilah

12-08-04, 05:59 PM

Yeah....well I know this cool story about a wounded bear and he scratched people in the city or something.

Pimp tells it better!
::pounce::

Yoda

12-08-04, 06:00 PM

Yes. But, and here's the thing, Greenguy... the intervening agency wouldn't take the kids' bank account. And what leads you to believe that that's actually taking place? Also, isn't your opposition to the war based on more than just any potential financial windfall that might result?

darkhorse

12-08-04, 06:30 PM

Which, basically summarised, means: Believing you're right is more important than checking whether you are (because the facts will change to match your belief - if you're powerful that is)

A few questions then:

-Just thinking about your own lives, do you think you should act on your beliefs no matter what the apparent facts, or should facts help shape your beliefs (and actions)?

-Is the US really so powerful that it can do what it wants to all extents and purposes?

-Is the US always right when it tries to do what it wants?

-Is placing belief above facts an acceptable way to govern?

Feel free to argue with my interpretation of that quote, and with the questions :)

---

(Transcript of 'Without a Doubt': http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101704A.shtml)
I call this the "Don Quixote Syndrome".

http://www.donquixote.ru/images/movies/lost_in_la_mancha/lost_in_la_mancha_2002_jean_rochefort.jpg http://www.poster.net/picasso-pablo/picasso-pablo-don-quixote-2300928.jpg

darkhorse

12-08-04, 07:17 PM

"Jesus I haven't been this bored since I played monopoly in the dark with retarded children."

Thought it was funny...

Now back to your same Bat time...same Bat channel.
That is pretty funny, I must admit!

Sedai

12-08-04, 07:21 PM

Hi Djangles :)

OG-

12-08-04, 07:30 PM

If you have a plausible alternative scenario under which he could have been removed, I'd like to hear it.

I've already given you one (a globaly supported war). Yes such a war would not have taken place with the immediacy that the American-centric one has, but it was not an impossibility. And also, such immediacy was not necessary, as has been evident by numerous investigative commities. Before you mention hindsight and how the Bush Administration believed Iraq did pose an immediate threat, you should take into consideration the intangible results of what a war in Iraq, spearheaded by America, were. I'm not one of those people who believe this whole thing was simply a guise for getting oil out of Iraq, but if you think the only reason for American intervention was to convert Iraq to a democracy, you're incredibly naive.

As for stem cell research. Yes, stem cell research is not an "ironclad" gurantee of a cure, but it is the best shot out there. And like I pointed out, in many cases is the only shot out there. Which circles me back to support in theory, not in execution.

If the way the Iraq war went down was what had to be done, if it was such an immediate threat that the US had to choose and execute it's best option, a non sanctioned intervention, then how can you justify going along with that and not justify stem cell research, which, despite whatever "other methods" you seem to be aware of that the rest of the scientific community is ignorant of, is the best option we've got?

I don't think I have to pull up any numbers to showcase how many more people (globaly) die a year/are handicaped for the rest of their lives because of ailments that can be averted because of stem cell research. I gurantee you the number is higher than the entire population of the country of Iraq. Are the people dying of these diseases, waiting for a cure, less deserving of their best option(stem cell research) than the Iraqi people were of theirs(democracy)?

It isn't like the US is incapable of doing both, so I simply do not understand how you can use the same logic to justify one and not the other and further use that logic to point out why other people are being irrational.

For once I'd like for a Republican with these beliefs to simply conceed that they're against it not because of governing logic, but because they are placing beliefs above facts. There isn't anything wrong with that. Democrats conceed they're against the war in Iraq because they're against the loss of life. The two are often intersecting each other, but I've never encountered anyone who has been able to admit that they choose to ignore that intersection because of moral beliefs, not because they're using logic as a guise when that logic punches a hole in itself.

Richard Hell

12-08-04, 07:38 PM

A belief structure over a reasonable fact seems a bit stupid, if you know what I mean. It's like having the answer to something and not useing it, for it doesnt sit right with you.

When you think about it, it does some time have a positive affect after-wards. Although some may dissagree with this statement you'd have to look back on how such things have actually worked in our very way of life. Almost every president has used their personal beliefs to interupt the balance of whats good, and whats bad whether it's on Religous beliefs, or Political matters. Atleast every man/women of power, has to have his/hers own beliefs and has to use the facts, but it matters on how he/she uses it.

2wrongs

12-08-04, 07:54 PM

2wrongs... "what did [you] miss?" Logic 101. (ooooh! burn!!) :p
Okay here's the thing. I give the analogy of my son facing a bully in which you misunderstand. Both Yoda and myself point you in the right direction in which your answer is," we're not Iraq's parents either." I claim that with what you just said, we shouldn't come to any nation's rescue based on your own logic. Then you accuse me of not being able to read what is written? Who missed logic 101? Not this MoFo. :nope:

Besides, you're stuck on your tangent about going over there for financial gain which hasn't been proven by any stretch of the wildest imagination, so I guess we're at an impass.

BTW~ Have fun at your Christmas Party! Whoot Whoot!

Golgot

12-08-04, 09:12 PM

A little reply to Yoda about the US being an Empire, the Bushies doing a bad job of running the world, the role of the dollar in US economic strength (and the invasion of Iraq ;))

Enjoy :) (all those who dare enter ;))

Acting unilaterally, for example, is not the same thing as acting imperially, but if you already think of the US as an imperial power, you'd easily see it as an example of that

I do think the US is a modern Empire, and that it acts imperially. I’ll qualify that by saying...

Logistical superiority: First off, you guys have a superior military, a huge influence over trade, and a pre-eminent economy, all of which you use to create favourable outcomes for yourself (unsurprisingly :)). The military is less active in this equation than in Empires of old, but perhaps this is why it’s apparent use as a tool for self-advancement in the current occupation has worried so many nations etc. It’s in the economics and trade spheres that the modern Empire tries to sustain and expand its influence – merely backed up by military might. (You may well bring up the words Free Trade in any answer you make to this, but expect me to freely trade some examples of its US-favouring shackles with you if you do ;)).

Trying to dictate international agendas and practices: Secondly, the Bu****es seem to be far too eager to ignore multilateral attempts to shape the world, trying instead to make decisions alone on the path the world should take in terms of: tackling islamic extremism; ensuring legal/moral standards are respected etc. The problem is that many nations (a) don't want to cede complete control (understandably :)), and (b) don't trust the Bush admin to handle all these aspects competently. And there are reasons not to trust the Bush admin’s competence to ‘govern’ the world (which is ultimately what we’re talking about here). Here are some examples of where they’ve tried to ignore multilateral stances, and have bullishly insisted everyone follows their lead instead, with a potentially negative result:

-International Law: By pulling out of The International Criminal Court they’ve tried to put themselves above the idea of international law and order, while simultaneously degrading the standards of those ideals in Guantanamo and other institutions [5 defence lawyers Vs. 20 prosecution lawyers in the Guantanamo kangaroo courts is inexcusable, inexplicable, undermines the US’s moral stance, and sends totally the wrong message out to dictators etc – i.e. that it’s ok to stack the deck in your favour and ignore international outrage if you’re the powerful one]

-Tackling the problems of the Middle East: By insisting on pushing on with the occupation of Iraq without the means to do the job effectively (and by publicly siding with Israel too readily) their involvements have been clumsy and potentially counter-productive where they could have been catalysts for co-ordinated international action and self-motivated change on the ground instead.

None of that is good leadership.

Add to that that the Bushies have gone on a big spending spree in Iraq while allowing the world to prop up your economy and weakening dollar (no matter what Snow and the others claim the admin’s policy is concerning the dollar – funny how you can’t trust what they say isn’t it ;) :p), and this type of power creates nothing but resentment, while simultaneously showing contempt for the world that nourishes it...

And to qualify that, i’ll have to tackle your perplexing take on dollar hegemony...

Oh yes, I'm fairly familiar with this. It's the latest craze: our economy's success it not due to incredible innovation or economic freedom (pshaw! Perish the thought; total coincidence), but some kind of gangster-like manipulation of the oil trade.

I think it’d be fair to say that you can only achieve the levels of innovation you achieve thanks to the privileged position of the dollar, and not the other way round (as you more or less say).

Oil trade is just one facet of this argument I’m presenting. This argument is accepted in every economic article i’ve ever read on the subject of dollar-predominance as a trade currency. The argument is relatively simple:

-The dollar is used for roughly 2/3ds of all trade (and even more where oil is concerned). The result is: Traders have lots of dollars on their hands that it only makes sense to reinvest back into the US (and thus avoid currency exchange losses/uncertainties)

The historical and continuing stability and ‘strength’ which this implies for the dollar means...

-The dollar makes up roughly 2/3rds of all national currency reserves – i.e. other nations need it to shore up the uncertainty and ‘weakness’ inherent in their own currencies.

The result...

-The US has:
(a) a huge level of investment in its industries/economy from international investors (no matter how well or badly the industries/economy are doing)
(b) A licence to ‘print money’, knowing that there will always be demand for its currency (which is allows them to run up deficits far huger [proportionally] than any other nation).

What i’m basically saying is that it’s THESE two giant global inputs of investment and ‘stability’ into US industry-and-economy that allow you to outperform competitors who have an equal level of product-quality (and indeed “economic freedom” – if not more so in some cases :p).

You argue that it was the US’s industrial/innovative superiority that allowed this situation to occur, and that sustains it now. By doing so, you seem to sell short the massively benifical input of dollar hegemoney in the present situation.

As far as the [I]present is concerned: Are US products really THAT good? Not as far as i can tell. Your engineering products don’t seem to be out-competing your rivals by any means. Your pharmaceautical products are world-leaders, but that’s down to the US being the biggest in science R&D – which is a money issue more than an inherent ‘talent’ of the US’s [without the funds, the influx of international experts that make up a large portion of your scientific community would cease – threatened as it already is by the current nature of your immigration laws]

As for the past: I’ve read many economic arguments that state that oil has played a big role in the dollar reaching its current state of influence. From the predominance of US oil at the time the gold standard started to fall away, to the influence the US had over OPEC (and Saudi Arabia in particular) during the the brief price war in oil of the ‘70s.

But whatever the past, i do think there’s a US predilection to attribute too much of your success to industrial savvy/US-superiority, and to underestimate the extent to which you are reliant on various levels of input from the world, over which the dollar holds sway.

The value of the dollar is determined primarily by how many of the things we print; plain and simple. Supply and demand applies in terms of currency, as well. People's willingness to invest in the dollar correlates with its stability (predictability is a prerequisite for investment).

Okay, so you can print as many dollars as you want, because of the reasons stated above. And yet, despite all your economic advantages, your weakened/unstable dollar is causing this...

Oil exporters have sharply cut exposure to the US dollar over the past three years, according to data from the Bank for International Settlements.

Members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries have cut the proportion of dollar deposits from 75 per cent in the third quarter of 2001 to 61.5 per cent.
Middle Eastern central banks have reportedly switched reserves to euros and sterling to avoid losses as the dollar has fallen and prepare for a shift away from pricing oil exports in dollars alone....
Opec officials also point to political motivations after the terrorist attacks on the US of September 11 2001. Middle Eastern foreign exchange reserves are relatively small but any switch may indicate the mood of private investors with far greater wealth.

Hmm. And you said the Middle East was could have no real influence on a shift away from ‘petrodollar’ trade :rolleyes: [NB you said this in derision of the idea that the US might have been economically/politically motivated to prevent Iraq’s continued use of ‘petroeuros’ via occupation etc]

[Dollar] use in the oil trade is the RESULT of that stability, not the CAUSE of it.

Well, it’s a muddled old bag my friend. It’s cyclical. And if the cycle starts heading the other way, you better hope your vaunted, superior, ‘innovation’, and internal free-market, can keep the US ‘empire’ at the top of the tree.

But now for something completely different...

Also, the quotes from this source are almost comical...they're virtually indistinguishable from what Bush's most ardent, fringe opponents often claim he "really" thinks.

You say quotes, plural. So which quotes are you talking about, beyond the first one i gave? The ones attributed to Bush by respectable, publicly accountable sources [senators and church leaders etc]? Yes, i agree. He does say some ridiculous and unbelievable things doesn’t he :rolleyes: :p

I recall you saying you had an inherent distrust of things that "fit too well" -- if this doesn't qualify, what would?

I don’t recall saying exactly that. I recall saying it’s easy to oversimplify. (But it looks like we’re gonna have to do that to get any sort of conversation going amongst all the emotional fallout ;)).

Right. Simplification over :)

Golgot

12-08-04, 09:24 PM

And left unchallenged, [the leftists] voices are heard disproportionately, demoralizing our troops, and emboldening dictators around the world - dictators who dream of the day the "Great Satan" disappears from the face of the earth.

Hmm, you seem to be a bit to far off into rantville on this one wrongy. I think i’ll just answer your article instead...

The events mentioned above, and largely ignored by the media, indicate a remarkably rapid progress toward democratization in Iraq. And, yet, at every step we had countless doomsayers who predicted that this or that step would not be taken because of “security problems.”

The big news, however, is that Iraq, for the first time since its existence as a country, has a choice. It is this big picture that is seldom noticed because of the media’s fixation with events of passing importance.

Your article should check in with the CIA occasionally...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1368898,00.html

The Bush administration's robust assertions that the situation in Iraq would improve with next month's elections were badly shaken yesterday with the leak of a gloomy end-of-tour cable from the departing CIA station chief in Baghdad.
The bleak assessment, reported in yesterday's New York Times, warned that Iraq would descend even deeper into violent chaos unless the government was able to assert its authority and deliver concrete economic improvements.

The point being... a functioning democratic government is worth nothing if it can’t act.

The further point being... until security is sorted out, no governing body can undertake any kind of meaningful social or economic reform.

The fundamental point being... this occupation was undermanned from the start. So it shouldn’t have happened until it could ensure a functioning state would emerge from the ashes.

I hope your article understands :)

chicagofrog

12-09-04, 08:39 AM

Once again, the argument centers around motivation rather than the result, despite the fact that the former is speculative, and the latter objective.

Yoda, you've got intelligent arguments, and that one i agree with.

I don't suppose you've considered the possibility that invading Iraq was both morally right AND in our own interest?

if you "don't suppose" i've considered, that means you think i'm too dumb? i always consider ALL darned possibilities.
you say the word "morally" here yourself..., so forget a minute about the results and think, do you reckon only results make an action *morally* good/positive? if my neighbor kills a woman on the street to steal her money and we discover later that she was a serial killer herself, the results may be "not too bad" after all, but was my neighbor's action *morally* right?
politics are more complicated than this example of mine, we both know that, but there were lies told by yr president and his government, there was arrogance and stupid childish positioning like "you're not with us you're against us", there still is no evidence of weapons, there are unanswered and consciously ignored questions (like during the debates Bush-Kerry) about why attack Iraq and not Afghanistan or Saoudi Arabia (where the terrorists were from), there is the evidence of economic interests and the "we couldn't care less" about what happened in other countries deserving to be freed as well, ... so the results, you know... we all know Saddam was not an angel, but it doesn't justify all of the above, no matter what the results are, if we talk about moral issues.
and you may not be as naive as many others, but i met tons of people who are soooo convinced (i'd say brainwashed) their sacred president and intouchable government acted ONLY in the name of freedom and blahblah. if that's not naiveté...
and in other countries i rarely met such people, that would tell their leader is 100% right, 100% of the time... except maybe in middle-eastern tyrannies - hence the irony!

and why the hell are you so convinced the role of the US as savior of humanity is justified?
such arrogance only met in America and among Russian fascists stinks. :mad:
you bombarded Panama and empowered and supported tyrants in South-America, and now, why wouldn't i, if i was president of a powerful country, have a right to invade you?
or cannot you even imagine, consider... such a situation, cuz yr country is the only one that has a right to invade?

and an expected byproduct of overthrowing a dictatorship

yes, when two members of a Latino gang shoot two members of a Black gang... the *byproduct* is positive too: we/society has two criminals less!
:rolleyes:

chicagofrog

12-09-04, 08:49 AM

we should have left Germany to Hitler as well...no need for us to be fighting other people's battles

oh yeah, you did soooooooooo f.ucking well that you divided Germany just to get the control of half of it!
and you and other "allies" put Croatia and Slovenia into the hands of Serbian imperialists, thus preparing all the subsequent wars in ex-Yugoslavia...
and you helped soooo damned bloody much in Chile, thanx! :sick:
like you now want Turkey to be a member of the European Union, while everything historical/political/*MORAL* speaks against it.
with such a friend as the US, we don't need enemies.

Golgot

12-09-04, 05:27 PM

Calm froggy, calm. Lick your hallucinogenic skin awhile and enjoy the colours ;). Coz lambasting US-patriots for past failings and 'less-than-perfect' actions doesn't do anything about today. N'est-ce pas? (i have no idea if that's right :rolleyes: ).

Has anyone not realized how incredibly badass of a quote that is and how it doesn't really line up with the manner in which Bush officials speak, which leads me to believe it is incredibly hyperbolic. I personally think Bush and his adminstration would believe those sentiments, but I can't even imagine anyone putting those thoughts into such an eloquent and commanding statement on the fly. And it isn't just because I think the Bush Administration is full of morons, it's that that qoute is simply that badass. If someone did really say that, then more power to them for having the ability to say something that fiction writers would have spent months trying to come up with.

Hey, don't forget Rummy's "known unknowns.." :). That was knocked out on the spur of the moment, was complex, made sense (no matter what people say ;)), and was obviously a pre-held and pre-rationalised belief.

But yeah, you're right, it is a bit too good to be true.

The journalism seems reasonable througout the article tho (if a touch biased ;)). I'd love to know if the journo's paraphrased/remembered this apparent outburst, of if he actually has something on tape.

Secondly, in conjunction with what the actual message of the quote is I think everyone should watch the reair of last night's Daily Show (tonight at 7pm est.) as the guest brings out some very good points about the very stance of the Bush Administration on reality versus perception.

Erm, dammit, wrong country. And timezone. Do those guys have a web archive or transcript thing going on??

OG-

12-09-04, 06:57 PM

Erm, dammit, wrong country. And timezone. Do those guys have a web archive or transcript thing going on??

Actually, it just so happens you can:
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/
It's on the right under Celebrity Interviews (Paul O'Neill). I'm not too sure how long it will be up for, so catch it while ya can. :D

Golgot

12-09-04, 07:46 PM

Actually, it just so happens you can:
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/
It's on the right under Celebrity Interviews (Paul O'Neill). I'm not too sure how long it will be up for, so catch it while ya can. :D

Class! Cheers man :)

OG-

12-09-04, 07:51 PM

The journalism seems reasonable througout the article tho (if a touch biased ;)). I'd love to know if the journo's paraphrased/remembered this apparent outburst, of if he actually has something on tape.

Did anyone else notice that the quote in the begining of the post doesn't match the one from the article...

In the quote you posted he is called a "senior advisor" while the article just calls him an "aide".....

Golgot

12-09-04, 08:20 PM

Did anyone else notice that the quote in the begining of the post doesn't match the one from the article...

In the quote you posted he is called a "senior advisor" while the article just calls him an "aide".....

Yeah, but if you notice in the paragraph above they start off by referring to him as a "senior advisor".

My quote's actually from an edited version from The Observor, but all the transcripts on the web seemed to tally with each other, so i took them to be accurate-enough replications of the original NYT article. Both versions seemed to say substantially the same things overall (i guess a senior advisor is also an aide in many ways - it's just that aide sounds less senior ;))

Anonymous Last

12-10-04, 05:55 AM

Did anyone else notice that the quote in the begining of the post doesn't match the one from the article...
"She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've added some special modifications myself."

chicagofrog

12-10-04, 09:03 AM

Calm froggy, calm. Lick your hallucinogenic skin awhile and enjoy the colours ;). Coz lambasting US-patriots for past failings and 'less-than-perfect' actions doesn't do anything about today. N'est-ce pas? (i have no idea if that's right :rolleyes: ).

totally correct French! :) ;) ;)

Golgot, i hope it's not the same effect with all other MoFoers, because colors are not here to divert your/their attention, i like embellishing the aspect of the threads in general, is all. plus, big letters and all don't mean i'm not calm. if i'm not calm, i don't write. :p

but you miss the point like many others i assume, since you take that as "lambasting American patriots" (and i fear you're not the only one) thus ignoring the arguments.

1) read it and you'll see it's not, far from it, all about past actions

2) i don't even see 100 years as a very long time, so the past year and all the political events around the president/government are NOT past

3) even the *past* events and wars and mistakes DO HAVE an importance today: it gives one more or less right to judge the others. how can someone justify a bomb on Bagdad (for past actions too!!!, be logical and coherent!!) if they deserve the same for their own actions, what your "American patriots" deserve to be reminded of, unfortunately

so if colors and fat characters blind you so you have an excuse not to answer any argument i have... i dunno.

Anonymous Last

12-10-04, 10:45 AM

Froggy dude...I'm going to get you a box of Crayolas for Christmas.

Would you like that?

chicagofrog

12-10-04, 11:04 AM

Froggy dude...I'm going to get you a box of Crayolas for Christmas.
Would you like that?

you're so sweet!! :D :) :p

Golgot

12-10-04, 02:05 PM

Ah, don't get me wrong froggles. I just wanted to focus this thread on what the Bu****es have done since they got into power, more than retread some of the older stuff.

I totally agree with you that the blindly-patriotic often need a bit of a history lesson (whatever their country ;)), but i was also saying that angrily ramming it down their throats won't get you anywhere. (i shouldn't have said 'patriots' in the first place incidently, coz those state-siders who want the US to use its power morally in the world are the ultimate patriots in my eyes - but you knew who i was talking about yeah ;)).

I get enraged too when i here the bushies/blind-patriots talking about the US in terms of pure good etc, while ignoring the reams of past and present misdemeanours which blight what good their country has done (whether it be election rigging in Chile, funding of torturing police forces in oil/gas-rich Uzbekistan, or what have you. Etc etc etc).

Keep the colours coming tho man ;).

chicagofrog

12-10-04, 02:11 PM

Keep the colours coming tho man ;).

hei! nice and constructive argumentation like always, Golgotty!! :) :)

i'm slowly showing my true colors!!! :p :D

(and i'm very anti-French, more than anti-American, since they effect me more)

2wrongs

12-10-04, 04:47 PM

I get enraged too when i here the bushies/blind-patriots talking about the US in terms of pure good etc, while ignoring the reams of past and present misdemeanours which blight what good their country has done (whether it be election rigging in Chile, funding of torturing police forces in oil/gas-rich Uzbekistan, or what have you. Etc etc etc).

I think the statement you make about 'Bushies' being blind-patriots is an exaggeration. I'm not as informed as Yoda/Chris but if you ask him about some of the known mistakes our country has made, I'm sure he'd validate them as being wrong and the same for myself. There's no way I think America and the government of it, is 'pure' good. I'm not stupid nor ignorant of past or present mistakes this nation has or is making.
I find it interesting that the people arguing with Chris and I make it sound like they are ten times more enlightened than us. You're so much smarter to be opposed the war. I think that's very arrogant and presumptious.
I don't assume that because you're of the belief that being in Iraq is wrong and the US is in it for the wrong reasons, that you're also a peace-lovin-granola-eatin'-birkenstock-wearin'-sexually-aware-hippie-child, do I?
I just think jumping to conclusions about a person because of one political stance is pretty judmental and I would refrain from passing judgment so easily. It makes you look like a heel.

Piddzilla

12-10-04, 05:17 PM

I don't assume that because you're of the belief that being in Iraq is wrong and the US is in it for the wrong reasons, that you're also a peace-lovin-granola-eatin'-birkenstock-wearin'-sexually-aware-hippie-child, do I?

Hmm.. That's pretty accurate description of G, I would say. :p

Golgot

12-10-04, 08:24 PM

Hmm.. That's pretty accurate description of G, I would say.
Hey! I've never eaten granola! ;)

I think the statement you make about 'Bushies' being blind-patriots is an exaggeration.

That was a slightly unfortunate word-jam there (written at work, at speed). If i'd been accurate, i would've written 'blind-patriots' and 'blind-Bushies' ;). Sorry for the misunderstanding :).

However, i think you should recognise that the Bush administration has employed a lot of 'we-are-only-trying-to-do-good' rhetoric (which tallies with the overly-patriotic US self-image of 'faultlessness') - and that drives Bush-and-US critics wild.

People that argue that the US is fundamentally doing good in Iraq (and in the world), and who can't back it up, are guilty of the 'blindness' i've laid out above. And wrongy, darl, i see you as one of those people.

I don't assume you're a child-eating dinosaur because of your views either - far from it - i just think you should be able to justify them. And so far you haven't.

So forgive me for tarring all Bu****es with a broad brush. It was accidental. But i'll tar all those who can't justify their stance with that self same brush. And for that reason i'll tar you with it too my darling. Coz you've made some very strident claims about Iraq, but you've done so in the face of the now-evident facts.

EDIT: ****!Froggy!I've lost my temper! ;)

2wrongs

12-15-04, 05:27 PM

People that argue that the US is fundamentally doing good in Iraq (and in the world), and who can't back it up, are guilty of the 'blindness' i've laid out above. And wrongy, darl, i see you as one of those people. I just refuse to believe that a man with a conscience would willingly send troups to Iraq for something to do with oil and money. People on this thread are asking us to belive that Bush is some kind of monster devoid of any morals at all and I just can't accept that given some of the other stances he takes on important issues. Besides, how can I trust the media?

I don't assume you're a child-eating dinosaur because of your views either - far from it - i just think you should be able to justify them. And so far you haven't. :laugh: A child-eating dinosaur? What the hell?

So forgive me for tarring all Bu****es with a broad brush. It was accidental. But i'll tar all those who can't justify their stance with that self same brush. And for that reason i'll tar you with it too my darling. Coz you've made some very strident claims about Iraq, but you've done so in the face of the now-evident facts. You are forgiven, even though now I've painted myself into a corner because you've singled me out. Can you illustrate for me, these strident claims I've made that I can't back up? Thanks. :)

Golgot

12-15-04, 08:04 PM

I just refuse to believe that a man with a conscience would willingly send troups to Iraq for something to do with oil and money. People on this thread are asking us to belive that Bush is some kind of monster devoid of any morals at all and I just can't accept that given some of the other stances he takes on important issues.

The thing is wrongy, he's got an obligation to think about what's best for the country too - and international politics is a dirty game. I'm not saying, with my claims, that Bush is automatically an immoral man. I'm currently of the opinion that he sees himself and his actions as moral.

But i am saying the actions of his admin seem to have been dirtier than necessary (in terms of them lessening the chances of a successful, life-improving, outcome in Iraq [and international cohesion on important issues like 'terrorism'] in exchange for making some geopolitical profits along the way - as stated above in my 'essay' ;)). As such, i'd say his assessment of himself as a moral man is unfortunately deluded, on the international scale.

(And by the way darl, most wars are fought either to increase or protect power advantages, national sanctity and access to valued materials. The Bushies have slipped up by trying to do a bit of both [IE some profiteering as well as some protecting] and as such have undermined both agendas)

Besides, how can I trust the media?

There are several levels on which you can trust the better end of the media (of whatever political leaning), so long as you keep your eyes open to standard spin and sensationalism (which are used by governments too incidently ;)).

To take a recent example...

When a government insider leaks details of a CIA report to a newspaper, and the government have no choice but to acknowledge that the reported details are accurate, then that information is (pretty much) what it says it is. :)

Interpreting information in these times of sublime levels of spin is always tricky, but that doesn't mean you should give up on trying to assess how good your info is. Accepting the words of only one voice (particularly the one that appeals to you the most ) is no substitute :nope:

:laugh: A child-eating dinosaur? What the hell?

Erm, you know, just mimicking the sort of bizarre condemnation i hear thrown around by both 'sides' ;)

Can you illustrate for me, these strident claims I've made that I can't back up? Thanks. :)

Well, the arguments you've put forward in this thread have centered around the idea that the occupation is establishing freedom. That is not a given by any means, and i posted a few links in my 'essay', from reliable sources, that suggest that things are not only getting worse on some fundamental levels, but look set to continue to do so, in terms of Iraq becoming a stable democracy.

The opinion piece you posted is just that - opinions - and its assertion that the election will change anything is fairly risable. The election means nothing without the government having the ability to act on its desires. If the country either continues in the current vein, or degenerates, then an electoral body will be able to do precious little for the people of Iraq.

The coalition's continued failure to deal with the security issue is the central fact that you're ignoring.

There are others (connected to that failure), but i'll let you come back on that one first ;)

chicagofrog

12-16-04, 10:00 AM

I just refuse to believe that a man with a conscience would willingly send troups to Iraq for something to do with oil and money.

yeah, and twas not because of racism that Hitler sent Jews to the camps...
:confused: :skeptical:
key word is "i refuse to", now this is objectivity! :suspicious:
tis all about money and power all over this f.uckin' world, but of course, a sacred American president - with obvious interests in oil - would be *the* exception... :(
oh gosh, now ask me, why the hell do some Europeans see Yanks as perfect examples of naiveté? :rolleyes:
tis a sad thing for people who do love some other aspects of America... :bawling:

2wrongs

12-16-04, 12:54 PM

The thing is wrongy, he's got an obligation to think about what's best for the country too - and international politics is a dirty game. I'm not saying, with my claims, that Bush is automatically an immoral man. I'm currently of the opinion that he sees himself and his actions as moral. I'm willing to go all the way with you on that one. I am, in no way, claiming that Bush's politics are not dirty. I think if the public new everything that went on behind closed doors, we'd be in for a huge shock, more so than we would expect. I suspect that Bush tries very hard to come across as a good upstanding Christian moralist, even if he is not, to the core, there has to be an ounce of truth. According to the way he moves on particular issues, I like what I see on the surface...even if he doesn't feel it deep down. Does that make sense? His convictions of doing the right thing, match up to what I believe is the right thing, on most issues, not all.

But i am saying the actions of his admin seem to have been dirtier than necessary (in terms of them lessening the chances of a successful, life-improving, outcome in Iraq [and international cohesion on important issues like 'terrorism'] in exchange for making some geopolitical profits along the way - as stated above in my 'essay' ;)). As such, i'd say his assessment of himself as a moral man is unfortunately deluded, on the international scale. I don't buy that even a little bit. If politics is a dirty game, then that is true for all politics and politicians. It isn't more true for Bush. I saw a lot of B.S. with a lot of administrations, Clinton for one, was no angel...even with keeping his sexual adventures out of the conversation...so...

(And by the way darl, most wars are fought either to increase or protect power advantages, national sanctity and access to valued materials. The Bushies have slipped up by trying to do a bit of both [IE some profiteering as well as some protecting] and as such have undermined both agendas) How is that a slip to do both? We could have went to Iraq under the blanket reason of just trying to oust the bad guys and the people affiliated with 9/11. However, in conjuction with that retalliation, we are also trying to "fix" what we damage. No?

When a government insider leaks details of a CIA report to a newspaper, and the government have no choice but to acknowledge that the reported details are accurate, then that information is (pretty much) what it says it is. :)

Interpreting information in these times of sublime levels of spin is always tricky, but that doesn't mean you should give up on trying to assess how good your info is. Accepting the words of only one voice (particularly the one that appeals to you the most ) is no substitute :nope: Wait, are you going to justify what happened with that made up story and doctored reports? I mean, come on! That was clearly a tactic pulled out of the ass of Kerry and the opposition in order to hurt Bush in a way they felt they needed to in order to change people's minds about him...tsk tsk. :p

The opinion piece you posted is just that - opinions - and its assertion that the election will change anything is fairly risable. The election means nothing without the government having the ability to act on its desires. If the country either continues in the current vein, or degenerates, then an electoral body will be able to do precious little for the people of Iraq. According to the testimonies of actual military personnel and Iraqi citizens, I'm stickin' to my guns on the fact that we're trying to do a good thing over there and the Iraqi people are thankful. I believe when all is said and done, if the only real tangiable thing that came of all this, was the fact that a deranged leader is in prison...then that's pretty, damn cool with me.

your turn. ;)

chicagofrog

12-16-04, 01:25 PM

I am, in no way, claiming that Bush's politics are not dirty. I think if the public Knew everything that went on behind closed doors, we'd be in for a huge shock, more so than we would expect. I suspect that Bush tries very hard to come across as a good upstanding Christian moralist, even if he is not, to the core, there has to be an ounce of truth.

now that was a much better argumentation, wise and not so full of self-deceiving illusions, i.m.o. :)

(but just keep ignoring any non-yankee argument if you please...)

Sir Toose

12-16-04, 03:42 PM

1). Chicagofrog, please stop using the word 'yankee'. In some states in the US, it pisses people off. If you must continue categorizing North Americans on this board, call us Americans.

2). Yoda and 2wrongs did a pretty decent job of representing my sentiments in an overall fashion (surprise, Golgot!) so I won't be essay writing.

Golgot said that patriot zealots need a history lesson and while I agree with that, conditionally, I also have to point out that some people here who think that they are representing the intellectual left also may do well to delve into the history texts.

Place a keen and discerning eye HERE (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html) for a record of several of the things that Saddam, representing Iraq, did to get himself into hot water. If we're really cutting up rocks here then lets cut all of them up instead of a select few.

Consider UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

This is not a new war. This is a continuation of something started a decade ago. Back then "UN member States" (Know who they are?) all agreed that the proper course of action in the Mid-East was to keep a thumb on Iraq. It didn't happen for a multitude of reasons that I'll go into (again) if asked. Iraq, over the course of a decade, violated about 80% of what they agreed to. Any ONE of those 80 were cause for global corrective action. I would say, some, whose palms were being greased by "you know who" suddenly experienced a loss of memory and a rubbery backbone, but that's my opinion.

Also, to speak to the statement made that "everyone knew there were no WMD's in Iraq", that is unveiled and quite smelly horse****. If I see this argument again I will be forced to look up who said what. As a primer, I'll give you John Kerry's statements after 9-11 on the subject:

"Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?" -John Kerry, October 2002

Oh, and if any lefties out there had any doubts about Kerry's position on Terrorism:

"And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?" -John Kerry, October 2002

He should have stuck with that, he might have won the election.

Sam, you make some very nice points regarding the economy. It should be common knowledge that the US has a huge interest in what happens in the oil industry. It's surprising to me to see that it has come as a shock to so many that this is the case. Planet Earth isn't that big and all it takes is a casual glance toward whatever traffic jam you're in to realize how dependent we (ALL) are on oil. The source is not inexhaustible and the quantities of barrels of oil used daily are incomprehensible. One day oil will no longer be an option for fuel.

Which leads me to some other points made here. Let's hear some thoughts about WHY we, as Americans, are so dependent on foreign oil.

Anyone?

2wrongs

12-16-04, 03:58 PM

2). Yoda and 2wrongs did a pretty decent job of representing my sentiments in an overall fashion (surprise, Golgot!) so I won't be essay writing. I was missing you in all these debates. :)

Which leads me to some other points made here. Let's hear some thoughts about WHY we, as Americans, are so dependent on foreign oil.

Anyone?
Well, this brings up the issue of Bush's very unpopular proposal to start drilling in Alaska. I see these things as "no win" situations. We loath being dependant on foreign oil because it makes us vulnerable to the actions of unstable middle eastern countries like Iraq. However, all the environmentalists are interested in preserving the landscape over there, and right fully so. I think Americans are trying hard to come up with alternatives like: Fuel cells
Energy Conservation
Alternative cars...
things like this.
The only real answer, and it's a grave one, is that the only way for us to stop being so dependant on foreign oil is to become less dependant on oil at all. Americans don't like this ultimatum because that means our giant, oversized SUVs are a problem. Yes?

Golgot

12-16-04, 05:36 PM

I am, in no way, claiming that Bush's politics are not dirty.

Jolly good

I don't buy that even a little bit. If politics is a dirty game, then that is true for all politics and politicians. It isn't more true for Bush. I saw a lot of B.S. with a lot of administrations, Clinton for one, was no angel...even with keeping his sexual adventures out of the conversation...so...

See what i'm saying about backing up your arguments? I say Bush has been dirtier than necessary, and i posted some starting points for why in my liddle 'essay'. You come back with the fact that all politics is 'dirty' by nature. Big deal. In what way are you addressing the relativity issue of some actions being more power-hungry/destructive than others?

How is that a slip to do both? We could have went to Iraq under the blanket reason of just trying to oust the bad guys and the people affiliated with 9/11.

Firstly, we're talking about outcomes, not declared reasons.

Secondly, i assume your example relates to what you see as the 'profit' aspects of the invasion. By 'profiteering' i was talking equally about oil control 'profit' as the 'profit' of defeating an enemy (which, of course, hasn't been done, coz locking Saddam up means as little as establishing an elected government so long as iraq is in a fundamentally unstable condition [that promotes further instability in the region])

However, in conjuction with that retalliation, we are also trying to "fix" what we damage. No?

Trying, yes. Succeeding, currently no. And as i tire of point out, the evidence is that this failure to 'fix' both the long-term damage of Saddam's reign and the short-term damage of the invasion looks set not only to continue, but to potentially get worse [ACCORDING TO THE 'INTELLIGENCE' SERVICES ON THE GROUND]

Wait, are you going to justify what happened with that made up story and doctored reports? I mean, come on! That was clearly a tactic pulled out of the ass of Kerry and the opposition in order to hurt Bush in a way they felt they needed to in order to change people's minds about him...tsk tsk. :p

Wrongy, get out of your trench and recognise that that CIA cable, and other similar gloomy evidence-based predictions by official sources, are the best assessment we have of the situation on the ground. They're not propoganda pieces.

Doesn't the fact that the Bu****es can't shoot them down suggest something to you? It suggests that the intelligence [now that it's on the ground] is coming up with facts that contradict what the Bu****es both hoped and claimed would happen in Iraq.

Deal with it.

According to the testimonies of actual military personnel and Iraqi citizens, I'm stickin' to my guns on the fact that we're trying to do a good thing over there and the Iraqi people are thankful.

Well again, there's trying, and there's succeeding. [And i can't even be bothered to broach the subjects of why the efforts to deal with security are failing]

The Iraqi people are indeed thankful. But less and less, as security fails to improve. And the whole point is that their thankfulness and their energy and their hope are eroding under these conditions - hence the CIA warnings that this instability can continue for only so long.

I wish you'd just acknowledge that things are currently going badly, look set to continue to go badly, can't go on going badly indefinitely.

I also wish you'd accept that a central cause for this is lack of manpower, and that is a failing which must be laid at the Bush-admins' door.

Whether or not you agree with my assertion that the Bushies were happy to go ahead with this insufficient force coz it meant they get to run the roost and walk off with all the oil-influence is by-the-by.

It's what's happening in Iraq that's most important.

I believe when all is said and done, if the only real tangiable thing that came of all this, was the fact that a deranged leader is in prison...then that's pretty, damn cool with me.

Well, that is one of those fantastically bizarre statements that really should cease to amaze me, but never does.

How in the name of Yoda's Pointy Butt is it OK to lock one nutter up and allow a thousand others to spring up in his place? How is it OK to stop one man running a country to rack and ruin, but then run it to rack and ruin yourself?

How are either of these things OK?

Again i say to you wrongy - look at what we know about Iraq's situation. It's not pretty.

2wrongs

12-16-04, 05:51 PM

Well, that is one of those fantastically bizarre statements that really should cease to amaze me, but don't.

How in the name of Yoda's Pointy Butt is it OK to lock one nutter up and allow a thousand others to spring up in his place? How is it OK to stop one man running a country to rack and ruin, but then run it to rack and ruin yourself?

How are either of these things OK?

Again i say to you wrongy - look at what we know about Iraq's situation. It's not pretty.
You've really just summed it all up there, haven't you? Iraq isn't pretty, well neither was the destruction of the Berlin Wall. It took a long time to have any sense of normality after the collapse of Communism and the end of the Cold War but no one is going to say it wasn't worth the efforts.
The efforts in Iraq are just that. Efforts. You can run around and complain that it's not pretty and it's not going well, but come back in, say, 10 years and tell me where we're at. Such are the times we live in...but it's not to say the generations afterwards won't reap the benefits. :)

Golgot

12-16-04, 05:57 PM

You've really just summed it all up there, haven't you? Iraq isn't pretty

No wrongy. If i were to sum it up, i'd say "Iraq isn't pretty, isn't getting any prettier, and looks set to get damn ugly, according to intelligence reports"

That is one of the fundamental things that you're ignoring.

Another fundamental that you ignore is that things could have been a hell of a lot prettier. This effort could have been far more effective from the outset. [But we can't even get to that stage of the argument until you accept that all the evidence points to the situation being unsustainable and liable to degrade if not rectified - and that a fundamental reason for this is the lack of manpower on the ground]

(Incidentally, the differences between this situation and the fall of the Berlin wall are so immense i can only humbly nominated you for 'Crap Analogy of the Week' award. Congratulations :p)

nebbit

12-16-04, 06:52 PM

so I won't be essay writing.

I am glad you didn't, as I would still be reading. :D ;)

SamsoniteDelilah

12-16-04, 07:20 PM

...Sam, you make some very nice points regarding the economy. It should be common knowledge that the US has a huge interest in what happens in the oil industry.
Thanks, Toose.

It's surprising to me to see that it has come as a shock to so many that this is the case.
I'm not sure that it is a shock, so much as dismay that the country is apparently willing to incur further military action in order to maintain a status quo that, as you say next paragraph, is a losing proposition.

Planet Earth isn't that big and all it takes is a casual glance toward whatever traffic jam you're in to realize how dependent we (ALL) are on oil. The source is not inexhaustible and the quantities of barrels of oil used daily are incomprehensible. One day oil will no longer be an option for fuel.

Which leads me to some other points made here. Let's hear some thoughts about WHY we, as Americans, are so dependent on foreign oil.

Anyone?
This seems pretty tangential to the initial topic raised, and I'm not going to pretend to be well-versed on it. I will offer that I remember seeing, during the debates, a question put to both candidates about the future of oil usage in the US. As I recall, Bush's take was that to fix the problem would cost thousands of US jobs. (Who is John Galt?) So he intended to do nothing, allowing the problem to continue to grow. As for why foreign oil, rather than domestic, I have no idea. I dunno that much about oil. The existance of the problem seems pretty undebatable, though.

Americans are, I regret to say, pretty spoiled. We want our gratification immediately, and our bills on credit. (The last national average for personal debt that I heard was around $30,000 per person.) Every morning, I can barely get out of my driveway for the parade of SUV's dropping off one kid each (MAYBE two), and I'm not even in the wealthy part of town. Our culture has come to represent excess and disposability. I'm no hippy-dippy tree-hugger, (and I'm not a Liberal, if that was your guess) but I think it's time we gave that some thought.

2wrongs

12-16-04, 07:23 PM

No wrongy. If i were to sum it up, i'd say "Iraq isn't pretty, isn't getting any prettier, and looks set to get damn ugly, according to intelligence reports" How sad. I say you should have to go to Iraq and say that very same thing to a soldier or an Iraqi. You are afforded the gift of a lack of hope. The people that it really matters to, don't. So I'll get on the side of hope. Thanks.

Another fundamental that you ignore is that things could have been a hell of a lot prettier. This effort could have been far more effective from the outset. [But we can't even get to that stage of the argument until you accept that all the evidence points to the situation being unsustainable and liable to degrade if not rectified - and that a fundamental reason for this is the lack of manpower on the ground] What good does it do to be this way about it? Are you going to change anything? I believe it does a lot more good to move past what could have been or what should have been and try to work on what we're left with. I think most people are still having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that Bush is still in office and making the tough calls. One wonders what your tone would be if Kerry were the one calling the shots. Actually, do you think things would be different right now, had he won? Just curious.

(Incidentally, the differences between this situation and the fall of the Berlin wall are so immense i can only humbly nominated you for 'Crap Analogy of the Week' award. Congratulations :p)
I'm well aware of the differences, what you clearly missed is the point. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that it implies.

Piddzilla

12-16-04, 08:19 PM

1). Chicagofrog, please stop using the word 'yankee'. In some states in the US, it pisses people off. If you must continue categorizing North Americans on this board, call us Americans.

Or, in some cases, rednecks. Hi Toosie! :)

Which leads me to some other points made here. Let's hear some thoughts about WHY we, as Americans, are so dependent on foreign oil.

Anyone?

Because you've made deals with the arab oil producers? Because you want your own oil to last longer? Because arab oil is cheaper? Because refining oil is some polluting business you'd rather have abroad?

I honestly don't have a clue what the deal is nowadays... But I know that long ago USA made some profitable deals with Saudi Arabia that probably lives on today. Saudi Arabia had the oil but didn't have the technology to refine it, and therefore needed foreign companies to come in and help them dig up the black gold. And the yan... Americans :D were the only ones who could come up with the cash.

Golgot

12-16-04, 08:21 PM

This is not a new war. This is a continuation of something started a decade ago. Back then "UN member States" (Know who they are?) all agreed that the proper course of action in the Mid-East was to keep a thumb on Iraq. It didn't happen for a multitude of reasons that I'll go into (again) if asked. Iraq, over the course of a decade, violated about 80% of what they agreed to. Any ONE of those 80 were cause for global corrective action. I would say, some, whose palms were being greased by "you know who" suddenly experienced a loss of memory and a rubbery backbone, but that's my opinion.

Seeing as i'm not against the idea of regime-change in Iraq, i won't be butting heads with you over the fact that Iraq got up to plenty of villainy and ignored the demands of the international community [tho i do love that little White House site - like the way it heavily suggests that Saddam broke sanctions pertaining to terrorist activity, whereas, as far as i know, it was other elements of those particular sanctions that were broken. Anyhoo...]

This is my gripe with the regime-change (which you haven't addressed)...

-That by going in with too small a coalition, we've been woefully underprepared for both standard security problems and worst-case-scenarios from day one.

My secondary (less proveable) gripe is that:
-the US has insisted on too much control over the regime-change (for the obvious oil and 'defence' related reasons), and that this is the reason why the coalition was ineffectively small.

I certainly agree with you that Russia, France and China were all profiteering in Iraq prior to invasion, and so didn't want this invasion. But here's a question for you...

The Bush-admin had made it clear it was going to invade no-matter-what (the forces were in position). So, given the choice of sharing their influence in Iraq, or loosing it completely, do you really think those opposing countries would have opted to lose everything (IE, staying out of the coalition)?

What i'm saying is, the Bush admin can't have offered these influential countries a fair cut of the profit-fall-out of this venture. The profit that the US now has all to itself, to all extents and purposes.

----------------Now for the meaty bit... stop here oh casual glancer :p ;)-----------------

And this goes further. Part of the profit we're talking about is the apparent propping-up of the petrodollar system. That was almost certainly a central debating point, and may explain why the majority of other 'minor' countries didn't join up.

So long as the US is acting 'paternally'/beneficially in the world, and leading the way by the example, objections to the 'unjustified' profits they gain from petrodollar trade and the like is, well, unjustified.

But if they start using the advantages they gain in this way to insist on more advantages too zealously, then the world community will draw a line. And that appears to be what has happened. Here are the two core ways in which i think they've tried to demand too much influence, while providing too poor a role model for the world to follow (again-ish ;)):

-Ignoring and degrading international law: Prior to the invasion the US had already withdrawn from the International Criminal Court, and had instigated systems in Guantanamo which made a mockery of the idea of valuing truth . They could have spearheaded a new Geneva Convention for the modern climate instead. They haven't. [Incidently, mention sanctions, and i'll mention Israel :p ;)]

-Economic 'terrorism': Strong term, but the reversion of Iraq to petrodollar trade looks like the militarily enforcement of this US-benefitting system [I]at a time when the US needs it most. Dollar devaluation seems to be one of the few 'solutions' to the long-running trade deficit, and this currency devaluation is buffered from causing the normal negative knock-on effects thanks to the dollars privilieged 'print-as-many-as-you-want' position etc (as i understand it). Ironically, this devaluation undermines the one justification for the dollar being the prime trade currency - stability. So the last thing the US economy needs while undergoing this repair phase is (a) to have its protected/privileged currency position undermined by other countries following Iraq's suit and trading oil in non-dollar currencies, and (b) the concurrent increase in dollar-instability that this would bring - making the negative trend (for the US primarily) liable to snowball.
You can understand why 'the world' (IE everyone else who only gains stability from the petrodollar/trade norms) should complain that (a) the US shouldn't take away the 'service' of stability while simultaneously demanding continued 'profit' from it, (b) shouldn't do so via a 'destabilising'/inffective intervention in the oil-rich and terrorism-generating Middle East and (c) should just accept market forces at work like everyone else [IE countries choosing to shift to alternate trade currencies if they chose - no matter how politically motivated the change might be ;) - see how cyclical it gets :rolleyes:]

There are other contingent issues, but hey, i'm sure that's enough for now ;)

Which leads me to some other points made here. Let's hear some thoughts about WHY we, as Americans, are so dependent on foreign oil.

Anyone?

Why is everybody? Because it works better than other alternatives. For now. ;) :(

Wrongy is right that the work on fuel cells is laudable. It's just a shame that the US is (again) hindering more than facilitating international attempts to deal with this problem that affects everyone. [They could spearhead a new, effective, Kyoto for example - one based on technology investment - which would be mutually beneficial]. It's another problem that the US can't fix alone, but refuses to collaborate on. Shame.

But to be fair, i understand the reasoning behind that bit of standard self-servingness. Well, as long as you don't believe in human-influence on climate change that is...

(But hey, at least this one's not all down to the Bushies. Congress don't seem to want to address apparent human-influences on climate change either. There's a bright note to end on ;) :) :rolleyes: )

2wrongs

12-16-04, 08:24 PM

Wrongy is right that the work on fuel cells is laudable.
Oh dear God, he said I was right about something? I feel all a flutter. :blush:

Nice Essay, by the way, it was much more readable and something I was more apt to swallow. Now I have to digest. ;)

Golgot

12-16-04, 08:55 PM

How sad. I say you should have to go to Iraq and say that very same thing to a soldier or an Iraqi. You are afforded the gift of a lack of hope. The people that it really matters to, don't. So I'll get on the side of hope. Thanks.

My darling wrongles. I am on the side of hope :). The hope that you'll get your head out of the sand (for whatever knock-on good that'll do), and realise the major tactical ****-ups that your goverment has perpetrated.

Before the war, i was cynical, yes. But cynical for hope-dashed reasons. I was hopeful an effective intervention could be galvinized. Instead, what i saw form before my eyes was a disrespect for international law which reflected badly on the US's morality [at a time when hearts and minds need to be 'won'/shared more than ever] and an intervention which i suspected (a) wouldn't be up to the task, and (b) would make the US look even more like an amoral law-unto-itself to the the very people it sought to win over.

Now, unfortunately, my fears are coming true. But i'm still hopeful :)

I can't emphasise this last bit enough however: it is your own frigging intelligence services and high-level personel that are suggesting that Iraq is on a downward slide.

I'll simply point out that there is no apparent mechanism in place to change that slide.

But you stick with hope alone darling. That works :rolleyes:. ("I hope a large beefsteak flys into my mouth, coz i'm really hungry"...etc :p)

One wonders what your tone would be if Kerry were the one calling the shots. Actually, do you think things would be different right now, had he won? Just curious.

I reckon things would be pretty similar to be honest. The ball's been set rolling. He might've made some ground on actually trying to broaden the coaliton - which would have done more good than bad methinks. :)

I'm well aware of the differences, what you clearly missed is the point. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that it implies.

No, i got the point. I just pointed out (a) we're not building a city, and (b) if we were, the architects would be saying the city's falling down.

*ponders... how long before someone takes the piss out of my "(a), and (b)" thing? Or hopes a large beefsteak flys into my mouth ;) :licklips:*

2wrongs

12-16-04, 11:58 PM

I think we've come to an impass. That's what I think. We're still where we were like 15 posts ago. I just have to say, I admire your skills in politics and in debating and I smile a wide one everytime you call me "darl" or "wrongles". I think it's swell that we kept our conversation from turning into mudslinging and wrestling, although...I could totally take you in a match. :p

chicagofrog

12-17-04, 08:45 AM

1). Chicagofrog, please stop using the word 'yankee'. In some states in the US, it pisses people off. If you must continue categorizing North Americans on this board, call us Americans.

yeah well then you, Americans, have a problem with words one encounters only among patriotic dumbos who care more about the surface, i.e. the words used for instance, than the content.
getting all upset about a coupla words you don't like gives you an easy excuse not to read the rest, analyse and discuss it.
and i don't/wouldn't give a ***** if you call French frogs - hence my screenname - and don't remain there with my brains stopped on one f.uckin' word. i can still read the rest of the sentences.

chicagofrog

12-17-04, 08:56 AM

Saudi Arabia had the oil but didn't have the technology to refine it, and therefore needed foreign companies to come in and help them dig up the black gold. And the yan... Americans :D were the only ones who could come up with the cash.

and apropos categorizing, Sir Toose, Bush's words addressed to nations that wouldn't support him were not, nonononono. :rolleyes: :skeptical:
hypocrits!
Pidzilla, nice words. now, i don't categorize, there are uh... North-American, uh, but i don't mean Canadians, uh, oh Toose, let us be... there are ... *them*, who give us hope and make us smile and have a sense of humor and are not conservative asses.
:) happy me

Sir Toose

12-17-04, 10:04 AM

From what I've read, you say:

1). Bush is comparable to Hitler
2). Americans are Naive
3). You proclaimed yourself to be "more anti-French, than anti-american" then chided another board member for not being objective.

and

4). You posted twice about my asking you to refrain from using a word.
5). I think you called me a conservative ass, but I can't tell for sure.
6). You, pot, called the kettle (presumably me), black by not addressing any of the points made between your tirades.

I read your comments and didn't have anything to say. I find them to be borderline over-sarcastic. I'm not really bound up by your use of the word 'yankee', if you want to use it then use it. Just don't complain if someone comes on here and starts generalizing and associating people who live in Germany with Hitler, for example. It's a fact that generalizations do not add value to any conversation.

Just because someone chooses not to respond to your comments does not mean that they didn't read them.

Oh, and Piddy, you've earned the right to call me whatever you wish.

chicagofrog

12-17-04, 10:43 AM

H!, Toose,

we all have our style, just like moviemakers have each their own, don't they? and that's something i assumed people - especially here - would understand. often, the style is a kinda decoration, and the deeper meaning has to be interpreted and looked for under that decoration.
so about mine, that's right i like to be cynical and provocative, mostly with words (i personally never had a problem with). for me they're material to play with. must come with being a linguist (and i wish my English were better).

1). Bush is comparable to Hitler
2). Americans are Naive
3). You proclaimed yourself to be "more anti-French, than anti-american" then chided another board member for not being objective.

1) twas one comparison. two names appearing in a sentence don't mean they're equal. when i see that German censorship prohibits a symbol like the svastika in movies about nazis, i find that non-historical and dumb, since i hate all kinda taboos. then i'd compare that with Mussolini and spaghettis, as in: "so if Mussolini ate spaghettis and liked them, that makes spaghettis a fascist food?" but it doesn't mean German censorship and Mussolini are one and the same thing. but maybe with a strong (shocking??) example, some people would consider being readier to auto-criticism than they previously were? :rolleyes:

2) generalizations. what does it mean? i don't wanna repeat in each sentence that i mean something between 49 and 99%. now, i have absolutely no chemistry with Germans. that's a fact no one can discuss, since it's subjective, it's me and them, and you don't know me. it doesn't mean that i cannot have German friends, and my best friend is German. but i find the taboo about generalizations totally dumb. without them, one can't say anything anymore. it all comes back (and down) to "we're all the same, we're all nice and all humans and there are no differences between men and women, races, nations, ethnies, peoples, cultures..." politically correct nice, but dumb and empty, statements. so between both, i do prefer the disadvantages of generalizations. and in the root of this word, you've got "general", wich would mean "all" Americans are naive. so i would call my fave writers, my fave movies, my fave comics, my fave bands, my fave directors... "naive"??? even me, i'm not sooo masochistic. ;)

3) my point is nothing , absolutely nothing, is objective. not even so-called truths 99,99% of humanity believes in.

4). You posted twice about my asking you to refrain from using a word.
5). I think you called me a conservative ass, but I can't tell for sure.
6). You, pot, called the kettle (presumably me), black by not addressing any of the points made between your tirades.

4) is that forbidden?
5) ohoh, so using the impression "conservative ass" in an answer to yr post means i'm calling you one?
6) i like that a lot with the pot and the kettle. :D
and not true.

Just don't complain if someone comes on here and starts generalizing and associating people who live in Germany with Hitler, for example.

i do believe in generalizations as a stylistic technique. depends too what one means, really. if that person has three German buddies and knows German litterature and cinema and has lived here and makes such a statement, i think they have a point, at least on the personal level. their impression about Germany must come from somewhere, after all. and if it's pure humor, whether i like it or not, find it easy or not, nothing would piss me off, cuz i have no taboos, and i spend much energy on struggling against them. tis humor then, is all.

It's a fact that generalizations do not add value to any conversation.

don't agree at all. one cannot talk politics and religions and humanity going case by case, human being by human being, or yr conversations would go on for centuries and yr children would have to finish them for you.
what's more, people who think they don't ever generalize never stop doing it, ... they just do it without knowing.