I'm not sure how you got that idea from what I said. The US loves to stick its nose where it doesn't belong. Vietnam, Cuba, Panama, Afghanistan (let's not forget, we trained and armed bin Laden to fight the Russians) Iraq (we trained and armed Saddam to fight Iran), Bosnia, and the list goes on.

We have a great time shoving countries around telling them how they should be, act, and do, and it's not our affair. If during the 80's Russia had come over here and started telling us to convert to communism, and started arming separatist groups who supported that notion, do you seriously think we'd have put up with it? The nukes would have been flying within an hour.

We invaded Afghanistan and I had no problem with that. They were sheltering the guy that attacked us. We told them to hand him over, they wouldn't, that's their problem.

Iraq is a very different story. He wasn't harboring bin Laden, he didn't launch the 9/11 attacks, he didn't have the capability of using those mythical WMD's against us even if he had actually possessed them - his best missile flew about 120 miles on a good day and then more than half the time it didn't hit what it was aiming at, which didn't matter because it didn't explode either.

The invasion of Iraq was wrong, it was justified with a network of lies and deceptions, and it's frankly no wonder that people around the world, including the terrorists, would be mad at us.

It's wrong for someone in an American city to kill me, but that doesn't mean I should go find the worst neighborhood, determine what the predominant race is, and then go walking around after dark shouting racial epithets. When they kill me it's still wrong, but it's my stupid behavior that brought the killing on.

And it's the same with the terrorists. When they strike it's definitely wrong, but if we didn't do stupid shit that provoked them, they'd go looking for other targets.



And Iran, Pakistan, and many others have done similar things. Why haven't we invaded them too? The answer is simple - Bush wanted to destroy Iraq to finish what his daddy didn't.



If we can get concrete evidence that he's there, and that Pakistan knows he's there and won't turn him over to us, then yes, we should.

And if Pakistan really doesn't like him as they claim, they should have no problem with letting our forces wander the hills looking for him.

Pakistan is not the wonderful friend Bush makes it out to be.



From my perspective, we've made one big foreign policy mistake over the past 60 years. We've tried to be friends with everybody, instead of making them try to be friends with us.[/QUOTE]

What do you call the lines of recruits outside iraqi police stations?
What do you call ordinary iraqis fighting back against insurgents? http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=45
Where has the new iraqi army come from if iraqis aren't standing up to fight for themselves?

The exit strategy is to train iraqis to defend themselves. Why does everyone say this is not an exit strategy? What do you want, bush to spit out a date that the last troop will leave? How would that help? It would only give the insurgents a timeframe to rest, recoup, and plan for a takeover once we leave.

We have a plan to turn control over to the iraqi people. They have elected officials, they have a sovergn govt. Their army is being trained not only by US troops, but outside iraq by european nations. NATO is helping to train the new iraqi army.

Lining up outside of police stations and actually performing the duty of one are two very different things. Iraqi police recruitment numbers are way off the mark of what Rice, Cheny and even Bush have bee touting for months.

Refer to my origional statement. Obviously there aren't enough of them standing up to the insurgents to stamp them out. If there were enough ordinary iraqis fighting back they wouldn't have such a stronghold as they do now. But try telling that to Dick.

Again, why aren't the numbers higher? As it stands right now, they arent' defending themselves. At least not very well. Why? Do they not want our version of freedom? Do they want saddam back? Do they just not care?

Becasue that's exactly what this is. When Bush goes on tv talking about how we need to "stay the course" he's besically saying "I don't have a plan, but trust me everything will would out in the end. Your sons and daughters will keep getting killed but things will just play out." A real exit strategy will set a definate timetalbe as to when the iraqi troops are to be trained, how many wil be trained, when they'll go online, when we wil hand over security of the country over to them so our toops can come home. And iraq needs to have their feet held to the fire to get this accomplished. Becasue as it stands right now, we're just fighting a gurella war with no end in sight. Adn iraq is just sitting there watching our soldiers get killed, not lifiting a finger to help. The faster they help, the faster they get their country back. But why would they want to? We're doing the dirty work for them, all they have to do is just sit back and save their own people. Americans are expendable.

Yes. It would help becasue there needs to be a some sort of date of when the handover of security is to take place. This is something that Bush should have thought of before he rushed to war with these guys. But since he had a big boner for war this is but one of the concequences of his actions. The insurgents can wait forever. No matter what we do. We can't stay in iraq forever so eventually, we have to leave. And frankly, they'll probably take over the country anyway so what's the point? Bush is the one who started this never ending war, and he has the balls to go on tv asking me to "stay the course" when he knows damn well he didn't have a any kind of plan to end this.

Whose officals are still being executed on the streets. What does that say to the average iraqi? I have a stable government if my elected officials are being killed on the street?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
I seem to remember when Bush told NATO to pretty much fuck off when he started this war in the first place. America's credibility is in the toilet and all those countries in the world that were behind us after 9/11 are now against us since Bush pissed that unity away with his little illegial war. The reality is, we're the only ones "training" the iraqi troops over there and recruitment numbers are in the crapper there just as it is here.

On the other hand, there's always Poland.

Okay this sounds very Zen and wise, but could you elaborate to me on how one would go about accomplishing this?

The response to this (if any) will mostly likely be along party lines.

Pound the shit out of them and make them see that the American way is the only way.

I think it is unrealistic to be asking for a timetable at the moment. One has to remember we had a timetable earlier. The Iraqi army was supposed to have been in command this spring. It didn't happen. The insurgency is too strong. The situation is far from contained, until that happens plans are very unrealistic.

On another note. If Bush orders a troop pull out before the job is done then he is branded as a failure and the Dems win the next election. If he sets a time table for post 2008 then the Dem candidate will be able to use "bring the troops home" as leverage to win the next election.

This is already over......from the standpoint of financing, the neocon centric foreign policy is unsustainable, and the U.S. is akin to a "dead man walking", but no one has told the condemned, apparently.

How much longer will the suppliers of 13 million barrels of crude oil per day, accept an inexhaustible stream of fiat script that is printed up constantly to pay the bill? The answer is that the suppliers' reluctance is already manifesting itself in the rise of the price to $60, lately. That's $780 million, every day, $285 billion for the next year.

Spending at least $600 billion per year on military related activities and items, to "make us safe", including off-budget expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not accomplishing that mission, and it presses further on the price of oil, as fiat script is printed out of thin air to finance military spending as well.

This past week, for the first time in 20 years, the price of gold rose against the Swiss Franc, perceived to be the soundest paper currency, with 40 percent gold backing. U.S. currency is backed by faith in the fear mongering propagandist who performed last night at Ft. Bragg, and the political and financial structures that he fronts for.

One of the fuckers who have positioned this country where it is today told congress,
The numbers and the policies as they are publicly proclaimed by these thugs, do not add up. The financial costs to sustain the 'way of life" that too many of us perceive as "our right", along with the military and other governmental obligations that we face, cannot be maintained by the economic base of the U.S. private sector. In 2004, China had a GDP that is about 2/3 of U.S. GDP,
and re-invested 46 percent of it (according to the CIA world fact book), and the U.S. re-invested just 15 percent of it's GDP. France re-invested 19 percent, and has a trade deficit of just $300 million, vs. the U.S. trade deficit that is now on a $700 billion annual pace. France has a poverty rate of 7 percent, vs. 12.5 percent in the U.S.

By any financial measure, and by observation of the trends in place, the U.S. is in dire straits if it intends to continue to import 13 million barrels of oil per day, and maintain it's military spending, even if it has not intention of paying back the debt that it has already accrued. The ominous direction that I see us headed towards, is a neocon stragedy of simply using the military to confiscate foreign oil fields form the hands of their current owners, or to dicatate the price that the U.S. will pay at the point of a gun or a nuke.

For some of you, I can predict your answer to the question, "is that how you want to live"? For the rest, what can we do about it? How do we live life in a country with a government that is an example to our children and to the world, when we cannot afford to do it morally or honsetly?

You are joking, right? You do realize that the Vietnam anti-war movement was largely funded by and answered to the KGB and their people, don't you? Read up on Armand Hammer when you have the time.

He did harbor terrorists that did kill US citizens. He did pay people to conduct suicide bombings against American allies. He did shoot at US planes. He did plot to assassinate a former US president. Any ONE of these was casus belli to kill him.

Why don't we give them therapy, too? Hell, why don't the Democrats run THEM for office?

No, they're next if they don't behave...

Simple. You stop giving them stuff, unless they come to us and beg for it. Then, you say "and what will you do for us in return? Land for military bases might be nice..." These people are not our client states, and just giving them shit so that "maybe" they'll like us is wrong.

Well, there's always Canada, and I hear the cost of living is pretty cheap in the Former Soviet Union... ;)

In case you're not up on your history, the vietnam war did not take place in the 1980's.





He did not attack us on september 11th. The man who attacked us on september 11th is still running around free. He did not have WMD's. The justifications used before the war were that he had WMD's and would use them against the US. He didn't have them, and didn't have the capability of hitting us with them even if he did.





Why don't we stop worrying about running other countries and start running our own? And why don't we stop with the partisan horseshit? There isn't one true democrat out there who sides with the terrorists. Stop spewing this bullshit that we do. There ARE democrats out there, however, who do not hold a Rambo-esque view of the world. We realize that, while we may not like what the terrorists are doing, they are doing it because they are pissed off at us, and maybe instead of killing off our soldiers by the hundreds fighting a nebulous enemy that is in the end impossible to defeat, we should instead try running our own country, stop doing things which we do not NEED to do for our own welfare, but which piss off the terrorists when we do them, and start being a good neighbor rather than the neighborhood bully.






Spoken like a true world conquest supporter. If you want to take over the world, just say so. But stop acting like every other nation has to act exactly like we do or we're justified in invading them. It's time the US accept that some cultures have different ways of doing things, and it's time for us to realize that forcing democracy is not only stupid, it's not even democratic. The reason OUR democracy has lasted as long as it has is because WE chose it. Forcing it on other nations is not going to have the same result.

I would encourage you to start a thread on this because it is news to me and I suspect most of the other Boomers that were there and protesting. Dang, I never saw a "red" dime.

Very reasonable and sound thought processes Moosenose.

I must commend you on a particulary well debated thread.

Aside from a comment or two by Pan, perhaps a snip of Shakran, and a dash of Stevo....your is but the lone voice of reason in this thread so far.

Well done,

-bear

Hmmmm.....care to play the nice game

No

OK....I dont care to either


Time to tone it down Moose

Actually, I wasn't trying to be mean. I saw his point as being that basically the costs of being an American were too high for him, in that he feels that he can't live morally or honestly in the US because of our government. I would never want him to feel that he could not live morally or honestly, but at the same time don't want to advocate that he commit another felony so that he could "feel better". (Remember, advocating that others commit a crime is generally a crime in and of itself, and "mass pardons" are much harder to come by nowadays then they were in 1976-1980.) What completely legal and morally acceptable alternatives does that leave for him? It's obvious that he cannot legally get Bush out of office before 2008 (and talk of impeaching Bush is laughable, we'll see government-subsidized legalized pot being given away in grocery stores before Bush gets impeached) , so he might very well feel more comfortable in a "safe" country.

As people keep pointing out, there are lots of "civilized" places people can live if they choose to that do not happen to be within the United States. If they don't want to, they generally don't even have to give up their citizenship, so coming back home after the '08 elections wouldn't even be a problem.

BTW, Canada is a very nice country, but the cost of living there can be pretty steep if you cannot legally be employed because you are a foreigner, especially if you are on a fixed income. I have friends who are currently living in the former Soviet Union, and they tell me that the cost of living in reasonable comfort is much, much lower there than in Canada, Europe, and much of Asia. Turkey, believe it or not, is also supposed to be a good place to live cheap.

I suspect that was because you were not married to Jane Fonda at the time, or in a high enough position to profit from it.

BTW, did you ever hear Jane Fonda wax rhapsodic on the positives of Communism? I recall something about "pray on your knees to become Communists"... "On your knees", indeed...

You're right, it didn't. It ended around 1975, IIRC. So you're saying that the Communists in the US packed up and went home after Vietnam?

Oh. So you are saying that we should support a war on terrorists that actually attacked us on 9/11, and not on any other terrorists?

I thought all 19 of them died? What kind of a war on terror are we going to have when the terrorists we need to kill have all died while attacking us before the war is declared?

So you can say who is a "true Democrat" and who isn't? Is Sen. Byrd a "True Democrat"? How many more times does he need to use the "N" word for him to no longer be a "true" democrat? How about Zell Miller and Joe Liebermann? Are they ""True Democrats"? How about Cynthia McKinney and her crowd?

It is far better for the American people to send our military to Iraq to kill foreign-born terrorists there, at the cost of under 2,000 American dead in the past few years, than it is for our military to sit back and wait for the NEXT September 11 to take place in the US, with the thousands of attendant American casualties in a day. It's not like they have an endless supply of suicide bombers, is it? 19 suicide bombers killed close to 3,000 Americans on 9/11. We've killed or caused to be expended many times that number of suicide bombers in Iraq, at a fraction of the American body count.

They don't have to act like us. But if they harbor our enemies, they become our enemies, and they have to understand that being our enemy carries a price. If they chant "Death to America!", they should be able to expect death FROM America. And their whining about it is just pathetic and exposes their impotence to the world.

The difference between the one line and three paragraphs: none. Infact it only got worse...

So then what was your original point in using a McCarthyian viewpoint of the vietnam war to dispute a point about the 1980's?





Uh, yeah, pretty much. It's our job to defend ourselves, not to arrest anyone doing any wrong anywhere in the world. If they want to blow shit up in CountryX, then it's CountryX's job to take care of them. It's our job to take care of them when they hurt stuff in OUR country.




Your grasp on current events is not very good then. All of them did not die. Moussaui is still alive and in jail. Many of the planners and instigators, including bin Laden, are still alive and running free. Only the operatives died on the planes. Those guys are the foot soldiers. Theyr'e expendable, and there's lots more where they came from. If you want to stop this group you have to cut its head off, and that means getting bin Laden. How can you possibly justify this "war on terror" when the president sees no need to capture the terrorist that started all this?





You come up with 4 people and use that as a basis to reject a party of millions? Gee, let's see. McCarthy, Nixon, Ollie North, and Limbaugh. There's 4 nutjob republicans for ya. I guess we can reject that party too. What exactly is your point here?




that's delusional, plain and simple. You're deluding yourself into thinking that we can protect ourselves by running around the world killing people while leaving our boarders wide open, our ports unprotected, and our airport security still not catching knives going through the scanners. And added to that we've got the entire world angry with us. How exactly is what we are doing protecting the American people?


Um, yeah, actually, they pretty much do. That's why so many suicide bombers are still blowing things up nearly every day.



Wrong again. They were not suicide bombers. They were kamikaze terrorists. They didn't blow themselves up, and they didn't have bombs.

If you have a nest of 2,000 cobras, and you kill 80 of them, the remaining 1,920 will still bite and kill you.





OK. You advocating invading pakistan and afghanistan again? Because that's where bin Laden is. And since Iraq wasn't harboring any of the 19 terrorists, or their bosses, why are you still such a supporter of the invasion?


You are frightening. You want to kill people for voicing an opinion? Freedom of speech is one of the pillars of our democracy, and you want to kill people for exercising it? I don't give a crap if they chant death to america as long as they don't act on it. You, apparently, want to go on a killing spree any time anyone looks at you wrong. That kind of militaristic rambo crap is NOT the way to safeguard our country.



People protest unjustly being killed by Americans, and you call it whining? I don't think that even merits a response.

McCarthyian? Sorry, I didn't "cut my teeth" on McCarthy. There has been a fair amount of stuff released from KGB files after the fall of the Soviet Union documenting the ties between the KGB and the Vietnam anti-war movement.

Thank you for proving my point. Somehow, I don't see the threat of arrest as being something that would bother most suicide bombers. Do you?

Moussaui did not participate in the September 11 attacks, did he? Has OBL been convicted in a court of law of anything? Under the law enforcement model, which is what you're actually pushing, OBl is innocent, because he hasn't been proven guilty. You say "the President sees no need to capture the terrorist that started all this". Are you seriously trying to say that Bush does not want to see OBL dead? Seriously, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, and all I see is a widely disbursed scattergun pattern.

My point is first of all that you are not the arbiter of what a "true" democrat is. And ANY party that would run John Kerry for their Presidential nominee is not just worthy of rejection, it's BEGGING for people to heap scorn upon it.

We can't protect ourselves by running around killing people around the world randomly. We CAN protect ourselves by running around the world killing people who are advocating our destruction. And it's not like they are all hiding, is it?

Really? I suspect that if you were to actually count the numbers of suicide bombers each day, you could run an accurate average daily count without taking off your shoes. Out of a religion that has over a billion members, that's not a lot of people willing to blow themselves up, is it? ESPECIALLY when many of them blow themselves up in exchange for money for their family from people like Saddam...

So an airplane loaded with aviation fuel isn't a bomb if it's driven into a building? I suggest you read BATFE's definition of what constitutes a "destructive device" again. I suppose that, since they did not blow themselves up, they were actually shot by police?

Which would you prefer? Them killing themselves in Iraq, or them killing themselves in Cleveland? EVERY single suicide bomber you hear of killing themselves in Iraq is one person who is willing to commit a suicide bombing that is now unable to do so in the US.

Because it's not a war on one group of terrorists, it's a war on ALL terrorists. If a terrorist group even CLAIMS that they want to kill Americans, they need to be killed. ALL of them. Saddam was financing suicide bombers. Saddam had sheltered other terrorists that had killed Americans. Saddam had terrorist training camps in Iraq. And no, not all of them were in the North, there were many in the South, one of which was overrun by a Marine Battalion just south of Baghdad, with over FIVE HUNDRED foreign fighters killed.

If the opinion is one that justifies their death, I have no problem with it. Take this scenario for example. Suppose you are in a bad neighborhood late at night. Suppose a young man, dressed disreputably, comes up to you with his hands in his pockets and says "Stand and deliver, your money or your life." Now it's very possible that he's really just an old Adam Ant fan expressing his right to free speech (and bad makeup), but if you put a bullet through his skull, it's still legally justified. Why? Because his statement posed a clear threat.

So cite your sources. And that still doesn't change the fact that you're using a war begun 20 years befor emy example and ended a decade before my example to refute my example. It doesn't change the fact that you're not making any sense here.



It's difficult to prove your point because it's nearly incomprehensible. You seem to want to kill everyone who doesn't like the USA. That's either a nonsensical wish, or a psychopathic one.



He tried to.

Where did you get that? You need to read my posts more thoroughly. If they attacked us, kill 'em. But you can't go running around killing people just because they wear turbans and MIGHT someday POSSIBLY be a threat to us.

Hey! By jove I think he's got it! Damn right Bush doesn't want OBL dead. If he did, OBL would be dead by now. Have you forgotten his press conference in March of '03? I'll quote it for you to refresh your memory:

I don't read that and think "Yep, Bushie's out to kill that dude" do you?



And I'm trying to do the same with you, and all I see is wild militarism and a desire to kill anyone who doesn't like your country.





This from the party that ran Bush? Sure, he won, but the man can't lead a kid to the crapper. Everything he's EVER touched has been destroyed. He destroyed every business he tried to run, he destroyed the Texas economy when he became governor, he destroyed the US economy, its reputation around the world, and any hope that we'll be secure in the foreseeable future.





No, we cannot, because when we kill people for speaking their mind, we make more people angry with us, and the more we get angry with us the less secure we are.


How is Saddam paying their families when he's sitting in jail stripped of all his power and money? I won't even bother asking you to cite your sources because your assumptions don't even make sense.


You also seem to have trouble understanding how to interpret the number of suicide bombings per day. You apparently believe that if they have all the suicide bombers they want, they'll send 'em all out on the same day at the same time to blow themselves up simultaneously. That's simply not how it works. Unless you can give me a finite count of suicide bombers, or give me a definite date on which they'll run out of them, then you can't possibly say with any credibility that there aren't many of them.


A suicide bomber straps bombs to himself and blows himself up. They did not do that. This is silly, it's semantics, and you are incorrect about it anyway, so why continue?



The only thing that's worse than your logic is your logic. If they're blowing themselves up in Iraq, they have no intentions of coming over here and blowing themselves up. This is a one shot thing. If they wanted to blow themselves up here, they would. You're acting like it's a good thing that people are blowing themselves up over there. You're acting like this makes us more secure, and that simply isn't the case.



And that is a mistake. In the first place, our primary target should be those who have already hurt us. In the second place, finding all the terrorists will be impossible even if it were justified.

More rambo crap. Life is not a movie, it's not that simple. Bush would have you believe the world is black and white but it is not, and even if it were, it's a lot easier to SAY "we're gonna kill all of them" than it is to actually do it.

You can say that about north korea, pakistan, iran, syria, and saudi arabia, among others. Your logic breaks down because we haven't invaded those guys yet. If that were really teh reason we went after iraq, we'd have gone after them as well.

And let's not forget that Saudi Arabia finances the HELL out of terrorists, a lot more than Iraq ever did, yet we insist on calling them our "friends" How do you justify that?




A totally different scenario from someone saying they don't like us.

only if you could prove it's a clear threat. A bunch of people thousands of miles away chanting death to america, but who have no ICBMs, no tanks, and no bombers with which to accomplish this wish, does not necessarilly pose a threat to us.

So the "Cold War" ended before the 1980's?

Not everybody who doesn't LIKE the USA. Just the ones calling for it's death. It's neither nonsensical nor psychopathic, it's called "National Survival."

So you're saying that they actually have to have the gun in their hand and pointed at us for them to be justifiably killed? I respectfully disagree.

Sometimes, it's hard to find one guy who has the entire planet to hide on, ESPECIALLY when your media releases information on how we track him. You're kidding yourself if you think Bush doesn't want OBL dead.

Once again, not who doesn't "like" our country, just those who are actively advocating it's destruction.

Ah. I see. Strange then that Texas went for Bush both times he ran for President, and Bush got re-elected in '04... I mean, if he had destroyed everything you say he's destroyed, why do we keep voting him back into office?

Either that, or they learn that running around chanting "Death To America!" is a bad idea.

he's not anymore, because he's sitting in jail, and not in one of his palaces. If he were still in power, he'd still be paying them. now he can't. That's a GOOD thing, and came DIRECTLY from invading Iraq.

you make it sound like they have this huge stockpile of suicide bombers that they are holding back. this is not true. In fact, "debriefings" of failed suicide bombers indicate that there is actually a very short timespan between when a potential suicide bomber says "I'll do this" and when they are deployed. this is true for a variety of reasons: First, because the longer they are not used, the better the chance that they will be compromised and killed beforehand, and secondly, because if you give them too much time to think, they'll do exactly that, and you run the risk of them backing out.

So somebody who drives a truck bomb into a target and blows it up with themselves inside it is not a suicide bomber? they didn't strap explosives on themselves, so by your "definition", they must not be.

how do you figure? they've proven that they are willing to travel across international boundaries to blow themselves up, yes? Some of the suicide bombers that have died in Iraq came from England. How much harder would it have been for them to fly west instead of east? They know that the war is currently in Iraq, so that is where they are going for their "martyrdom" operations. If they were not going to Iraq, where would they be going? did you ever study the WWI battle of Verdun?

So you are saying that we should not go after all terrorists. Is this correct?


Actually, some things ARE "black and white". Terrorists are BAD. there are no "grey" terrorists.

We can only be so many places at any one time. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia's governments ARE helping us. Their official state policy is to combat terrorism. Now Iran and Syria both have governmental policies that support terrorists. In fact, Iran apparently just elected an anti-american terrorist as their President, according to recent news stories which state that he was one of the kidnappers from the US Embassy in Tehran.

Are they trying to help us? Are they killing the terrorists that they catch?

the people chanting "Death To America" are certainly a very rich recruiting source for terrorists, yes? I mean, if they are running around chanting "Death To America!", it's pretty clear that they ALREADY don't like America, yes? If a "priest" goes around issuing Fatwas saying it's OK for people to kill Americans, that "priest" has indeed shown himself to be dangerous and worthy of being killed, because he's telling people it's OK to kill Americans.

Around here, the scenario I described would be considered to be entirely within the law. The person saying "your money or your life" can INDISPUTABLY be shot, even though you as the victim haven't yet seen a weapon. The words alone are enough to constitute a threat that entitles the attacked person to kill them in self defense. As a result of this, people tend to be careful about saying things like that. Go figure. ;)

seriously, I recall a case a while back that was interesting. It seems that a Navy guy's house kept getting broken into by a literal crackhead. While he was out on deployment, the crackhead broke in so many times that his wife and kids had to leave the house for their own safety. The crackhead was not attacking people, he was just stealing stuff. So the Navy guy gets back from deployment, gets a gun, and goes into the house to wait for the crackhead. the crackhead breaks in again, and the Navy guy shoots him dead. The CA, being a politician, decides "OK, let's prosecute this guy, because the Navy guy basically ambushed the crackhead, and I don't think that's right." The result? A jury of his peers found the Navy guy not guilty on all counts, and sent him back to his family. BTW, I don't think the CA's political career is doing too well nowadays...

No they aren't helping us. THEY'RE HARBORING AND SUPPORTING THE TERRORISTS WITH CASH!!!

Now, under Bush's wonderful logic, (and from his own quote of "anyone who supports terrorists is an emeny of the United States") doesn't this make Saudi Arabia our enemy? But we still call them friend.

I'm so confused. Please clarify this with the republican super kool-aid logic that they serve at the meetings.

Now, if we had our own soruce of energy we wouuldn't need to kiss their ass and overlook this fact and Bush wouldn't have to hold hands with one of their princes during a nice stroll down the white house lawn.

Belive it or not, Saudi Arabia is NOT made up of one person. The government of Saudi Arabia may do one thing, and some of the people may do something else entirely. Hell, Part of the government may be doing one thing, and another part of the government may be doing something else. The fact remains that the official policy of the Kingdom is to kill, not coddle, terrorists, and they are pretty good at it. They have an extensive list of wanted terrorists, and it is not rare for them to catch and kill them. Periodically, some of the good Saudis die in the process.

The actual GOVERNMENT of Saudi Arabia has a very good reason to be harsh to the terrorists. Why? Because the Wahabists think the rulers of Saudi Arabia are decadent and entirely not good Muslims. The Government and the terrorists have been fighting each other for quite a while.

Um, no. . . where'd you get that from? The cold war was at its peak in the 80's. My example was in the 80's. You used something from the 60's and 70's to refute it. Didn't make sense.





Yes, absolutely. The "gee he MIGHT be dangerous so let's off him" approach is not only immoral, it's stupid.

You MIGHT be dangerous to me. You have the capability of killing me IF you figure out where I live and IF you get a gun and IF you're a good enough shot and IF you decide you want me dead. IF all those if's come together, you could conceivably kill me. By your logic, I now need to hunt you down and kill you first.




You're kidding yourself if you think he does, after he says he's not concerned about him. You're kidding yourself if you think he does after he takes the troops looking for them and sticks them in Iraq.


That's a great question and one that I can't figure out. But let's look at history. We kept voting Reagan back in office even though he drove up the worst (at the time - Bush Jr. has now eclipsed his record) debt ever, called Russia an evil empire on a national broadcast (by your logic, Russia should have destroyed us for that), and was actively involved in Iran-Contra. And you earlier claimed that Sen. Byrd was horrible because of his "n-word" comments -- - why do we keep electing HIM? You're not even being consistant with your inconsistancies here ;)





And with him toppled, Iraq is now free and open for all sorts of other terrorists to set up camp there, and work against the US. That's a BAD thing and came DIRECTLY from invading Iraq.



You make it sound like they're already out of suicide bombers. Look you don't have to have a stockpile of anything as long as the supply line keeps turning it out. They might not have 50,000 people in a warehouse somewhere waiting to bomb people, but every day they get new volunteers and every day they send volunteers out to bomb people. Whether you have 'em stockpiled or they keep volunteering each day, you still have a big supply.





They ARE going to Iraq, so your supposition is irrelevant. And remember, they werent' this active before the invasion. They weren't coming over here every day and blowing something up. Any danger of that has been created by our invading Iraq.




That's right. Or would you have us invade Ireland to get rid of their terrorists too?

Terrorists are BAD, but they're not necessarilly BAD to US. The people setting off car bombs in Ireland couldn't care less about attacking the USA. They're terrorists, but they don't threaten us. We need to concentrate on what actually threatens us, and Saddam was very low on that list compared to other threats.

Look again at OBL - He attacked the WTC twice, the pentagon once, and was going after other targets but his plane crashed. That's pretty solid evidence that he's not only BAD, but he's BAD toward US. He's logically the guy we want to get, not some dink in the desert who can't blink without us knowing about it.


Their official STATED state policy is to combat terrorism. But it's hard to combat it when you're funding it. You seem to be saying "as long as they SAY they don't like terrorrists, it doesnt' matter what they DO, so we don't need to invade them."

Your arguments seem to be mainly about words. If someone says bad things about us, we kill them. If someone does bad things to us, we let them escape into the desert. Makes no sense whatsoever.


Lots of people don't like America. Far fewer of those people actually plan on doing anything about it. You do not kill people because they voiced an opinion. And again, OBL has said "death to america" for years, and he's actually acted upon it. You cannot justify going after anyone until you acknowledge that OBL needs to be our primary target, because all of the arguments you are using to go after people, OBL fits, and does so to a greater extreme than any of the people you want to go after. He not only chants death to America, he ACTS on it, and has done so many times.

No grey terrorists. But there are some grey terror supporting governments?


I think the internal instability of the kingdom is a reason for their back and forth approach to controlling terrorism...but it's not an excuse.

I think it's safe to say that there are some fundamental differences of opinion here. Why continue to try to convince each other of your position. It's not as if moosegoose if going to turn around and say "Hey! You're right. Killing everyone is not the answer", or that Shakran is going to turn around and say "Hey! You're right. Let's nuke those fuckers who don't sing the Star Spangled Banner."

This thread has become tiresome.


Mr Mephisto

Even when making a reasonable and valid point your bias shines through ;)

I think its safe to say that moosegoose doesn't wish to kill everyone or that his point is to "nuke fuckers who don't sing the star spangled banner". Your examples were meant to be extreme of course but interestingly both paint moosegoose as the unreasonable party.

Now what I think is interesting here is I don't' think you did that on purpose, but it is just another example of how our preconceived notions effect how we react.

No offense intended of course, we are who we are.

I LOVE IT!

BETTER THAN COLOMBO!
:lol:

Well. . if the shoe fits. .. . He's advocating a declaration of war on anyone who doesn't like us. That's not only unreasonable, it's crazy. Even if we had the manpower to do it (we don't) it's senseless to send our soldiers off to be killed when there are better ways to deal with the issue.

funny how this kind of argument turns back around on the person making it almost every time.

for ustwo, the question of biais is now flattened into some a priori in order to exempt the conservative in the debate from having to submit his position to debate (which would imply the possibility of rethinking basic assumptions --without that there is not and never will be any debate) or even to be reasonable (read through what moosenose has posted in this thread and try--just try--to convince me that his positions are reasonable by any measure).

the point concerning paradigms/predispositions--which was interesting and potentially important when ustwo initially made it---now gets instrumentalized--the notion of paradigm becomes a device for relativizing positions and short circuiting arguments, particularly arguments involving a conservative at the loosing end of things.

and so it joins the ranks of other such moves--bush-bashing, bush-hating ad nauseum--whose sole function is to give conservatives a way to opt out of discussion when things reach a point that they might actually have to re-examine their position.

all this in a post that purports to adjudicate a particular exchange.

i dont think that moosenose is being defended by ustwo because his arguments are reasonable--i think he is simply being defended beacuse he is conservative. the basis for the defense is that any rejection of conservative ideology, of conservative arguments, is arbitrary--but this argument, like the other quoted above, reverses immediately--it implies that any commmitment to conservative ideology or conservative argument is arbitrary as well--and--sadly, the relativizing move simply functions to confirm that.

arbitrariness creeps into things because even as ustwo moves to the register of paradigm or predisposition, he does it not to open that register up for debate in itself--whci would constitute a real improvement in the level of debate within these forums--but rather to remove it from any possibility of debate.

my sense is that a recurring explanation for the frustration and irritation that flares up in this forum is the flat refusal of conservatives to enter into meaningful discussion about their system of thinking as a system.
this does not happen with folk who oppose them--but the assymetry turns out to be equally annoying across the board--conservatives think they are put upon, others think they are being obtuse. and things get snippy from that point.

that is how is went here, that is how it has gone in any number of other threads and that is probably how things will always go in this or any other space like it so long as this mode of argument coming largely from the right is confused with something legitimate.

i know that i am not the model of willingness to compromise in this space--but i will say that on some issues my position has moved as a result of discussions here--toward a more mixed view of gun control, for example--and the other way as well, in response to types of arguments that i find myself reading through.

but i have seen almost no movement on the part of folk who play here from the right--but maybe i dont see it for some reason--so perhaps i am wrong (let me know if i am--i am always up for being surprised.)

but if you really believe as you seem to in that last post, ustwo (and others from the right), then what on earth for you is the point of engaging in discussion at all?

there is no discussion: there is an exchange of monologues.

and this is why i am growing increasingly weary of this space in general.

I don't know if its funny or sad, but I didn't think moosegoose's arguements were arbitrary, and I'm not agreeing with him purely because he's a conservative. I happen to find his arguements reasonable and logical. I think most conservatives would agree. And that's what separates us. To the conservative crowd, these are logical, reasonable arguements, and the basis of the war on terror.

I was following you up until this point. What do you mean "discussion about their system of thinking as a system?" To me, and I assume most people who think like me, believe our arguements are simple and straightforward and that there is no need for explanation. Maybe there is some room to work on this one though.


I agree with you on this, but might I add one point...Its not only others that think conservatives are being obtuse, conservatives think others are being obtuse as well.

I thought many of shakran's arguements were very obtuse, perhaps it was simply a breakdown in communication and understanding what the other said, but there was constant referring to moosegoose's arguement as "wanting to kill everyone who doesn't like the us" and thats not at all what he was saying. he clairified that several times, but the point just didn't get through.

I just don't think it is all conservative arguements that stifles debate, but a combination of the two sides of the arguement constantly clashing and cancelling eachother out. It goes on like this for days in a thread.

I think most liberals don't understand the conservative arguement that America was not attacked because of our foriegn policy and "meddeling in other's affairs," but because the pan-arab population has been indoctrinated by their leaders (through the media and the supporting of extremist religious views) that america is the great satan. The people have been told this for generations because it is yet another weapon dictators have to keep ahold of their power.

The liberal arguement is that if we change the way we act around the world the terrorists won't have any reason to attack us.

But thats not true. They attack us because they hate us, they hate us because theyve been, for all intents and purposes, brainwashed. Nothing we do, short of killing the extremists, giving people the opportunity to be free so that they can freely be allowed to find all the information (both sides, or more) of a story. Like the story they've been told since birth, that the US is the devil. We give these people the ability to free themselves from tyrants, improve their standards of living (over time) and the personal freedoms we take for granted every day, all the while we are killing the terrorists that hate us and destroy their countryside and then one day, they don't have to like us, but they might not be so willing to blow themselves up to kill us, or just kill us in general.

stevo: thanks for the response--i dont buy some of it, but it is an interesting position you outline.

one thing that i have been interested in doing here, in this board, with varying degrees of clarity i'm afraid, is to try to work out a general logic for how conservatives in the new mode argue--what the logic is, how the various positions that folk hold fit together. desipte the occaisional flashes of irritation that i let pass when i write these things, i am really interested in trying to understand this logic--mostly because i see it running through the posts and conversations of many folk i encounter.

what i mean by this is that i think there are patterns that let the arguments you characterize as straightforward function. i try to outline, from time to time, what i think those patterns are. because i think it most strange that it is so difficult to get folk from the right to explain why they hold certain views, how these views fit with others, and how they fit with data about the world. this partly as a reaction to the difficulty i mentioned before, and partly because i think the patterns i noted are new and frankly are dangerous if you value anything like a democratic process that necessarily involves debate, conflict between positions--and the possibility of real dialogue within that and possibly, on that basis, something like shifting positions.

i am afraid i'm being vague here: i did something a few days ago somewhere--not sure where right now---that ran out a theory about the basic structure, the basic pattern that holds these positions together as being a transposed racism--i tried to be quite clear about what i meant--which was not that conservatives are racist--but rather that there are similarities at the level of pattern between ways of pitching claims in both areas. that conservative politics seems to me to be about a particular personal belief that is defined as much be reating against the outside as it is about anything positive from the inside, and that this belilef leans pretty heavily on a kind of religious committment as its model.

i do not write stuff like that--and this really---out of much motive except trying to understand what i see as a strange kind of politics--a strange and relatively new kind of politics in the american context.
so that's why i use the terminology that i use.
well that and i actually think like this.
just to explain.

as for the claim concerning "terrorism" suffice it to say here, because i am not interested in arguing about it, that i do not buy your assumptions.

I'm not exactly sure of the patterns you mention. I remember your "racist" post, and later after reading it I do remember thinking to myself, "well, yeah, of course there's an us and a them. If they thought the way we thought they would be us"

But I'll think about it some and let you know if I can help you out, but I'm not sure I'll come up with anything.

I think as far as current world events are concerned and the discussions about them, perhaps it comes down to beliefs. and beliefs are hard to change. people die for beliefs, just look at suicide bombers.

stevo: maybe.
but if understandings about the world are simply beliefs, then there is no hope of discussion.

there is data out there--there are arguments to be had about how that data is organized and interpreted, but there is data.
you can research topics that interest you--i can research them.
and if we are talking about information, then it should follow that that information can be interpreted and that those interpretations can be debated--because an interpretation is an argument about the data and almost never exhausts the data.

but it is, i hope at least, clear that there are better and worse, more and less compelling interpretations, and that if you are going to enter a debate about data--about descriptions of the world--then argument can and should be about which information, which argument about that information, which interpretation better enables you to make sense of the description--or reject it as the case may be.

i do not see how questions concerning whether a description of the world, or a situation, can be compared to a matter of belief--the question of what information you think relevant to explain this "war on terror" is not the same type of question as do you believe in god--a god that you cannot see, cannot analyze, cannot really argue about on the basis of information on the same order.

maybe if i understood your claim that interpretations of the world, and information about that world, is a function of straight belief i would understand more about how this whole thing works---but frankly, it seems to completely counterintuitive that i really dont know how that position is even possible, much less how one would come to subscribe to it.

That's a complete and deliberate misstatement of my position. Are you making such a misstatement out of ignorance or maliciousness? I have repeatedly said that I do NOT support attacking anybody who does not like us just because they do not like us. A large percentage of the French do not like us, and I have not advocated attacking them, have I?

There is a difference between the French saying "we don't like America or Americans." That is not casus belli, that is their opinion. When others shout "Death To America", THAT IS casus belli, in that it is a direct threat to harm people. If you say to somebody "I don't like you", that's not a crime. If you say to somebody "I'm going to kill you", that IS a crime. The severity of the crime depends on the circumstances. now if the French were running around screaming "Death To America!" while supporting terrorism, then I WOULD say it's justifiable to go after them.

Actually, when have you NOT advocating killing everyone who said nasty things about us? You want to kill people for SAYING "death to america" even if they don't act on it, and even if they have no capability of acting on it. That's absurd...


And on another note, I'm not the only one to compare the current political climate to McCarthyism:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._dionne29.html

As does yours. :)

I'm not one that often quotes Jesus Christ (remember him? "[T]hat Hippy Bastard from Nazareth...who got what he deserved"), but as he says "Let he without sin cast the first stone.

Everyone is biased. You just as much as I.

Erm... that's because I think he IS the unreasonable party.

The point of my post was more to say that the useless arguing, back and forth, was not really going anywhere. My position with regards to moosegoose's vitriolic posts are elsewhere on the thread.

Well, I kind of did do it on purpose. :) But my ultimate goal was 'pure and good'. That is, and I actually stated this elsewhere, that I respect everyone's opinion, but that using vituperative nonesense does it no favours. And before you accuse me of MORE bias, this applies to both sides of the spectrum!

Basically what I was trying to say was "why are you trying to convince each other, as it appears that we have some people who are entrenched in their opinions and you will not change them"?

That's all.

The facetious "quotes" were just a little added colour. :)


None taken. And hopefully none given.

Mr Mephisto

I agree with you. But as much data as there is, it is always incomplete. and often its presented in a biased manner. Its important and is definately the basis of discussion, but there are some things we will never know, that the data will never show, until after its happened. One cannot rely soley on data.

My belief in the war on terror and my belief in God aren't equatable. My belief in God is based in faith alone, while my belief in the war on terror is based on the facts as I interperate them, coupled with a belief that what we are doing is right, just and ultimately in the name of peace.


I think I try to seek the bigger picture, not with immediate results, but generations of change. Everything takes time and I can be patient. I believe I'm rational and I would call myself optimistic. Like in an earlier post I read, everything is going fine in conservative-land, or at least the situation isn't as bad as it's portrayed.

Yes but by singling out one of the posters as the 'problem' you just continue the thread.

So while pretending to be the voice of reason, you were just another voice.

I disagree. On the contrary, I think I am the voice in reason in this specific case.

I'm not trying to convince moosegoose of my position. I haven't even stated it here.

I'm just saying, 'why are you [two] trying to convince each other, when you know you won't succeed?'

So, by all means, continue to believe whatever you want.
- That those who say "Death to America" are creating a casus belli (which is complete bunkum)
- That the US Army is engaged in ongoing war crimes (which is complete bunkum)
- That Bush wants to take over the world, or that the war in Iraq was simply about oil (which is complete bunkum)
- That the invasion of Iraq was about terrorism (which is complete bunkum)
- etc etc

There are misconceptions and untruths being promulgated on both sides. Screaming at each other won't make your political opponent agree with you.


Mr Mephisto

speaking for myself, Mephisto, it's not that I'm trying to convince Moosenose. I'm refuting his arguments because others might read them and fall for them. One of the chief problems with the democrats these days is that when the repulblicans spread their prevaricating bullshit around, the dems don't do anything about it. Whether it's because they're wimps or because they say to themselves "how in the living HELL could anyone possibly believe this crap? I don't need to say anything against it," the fact remains that unchallenged, stuff like that convinces people.

You'll notice that while "liberal" is an insult, "conservative" is not. Just another example that the republican political machine is much more successful than the democratic one (not that I think the dems have a machine - they need one, but they don't have it) because the democrats won't stand up and point out the truth EVERY SINGLE TIME a republican tries to mislead someone.

That's not exactly the brightest way to stop them, and I for one do not intend to fall into the "stand by and watch it happen" stupidity phase the dems are going through.

So every time I see lies, misleading comments, false data, or conservative propaganda, I will speak out against it. Not because I think it will convince the spreader of the propaganda to stop, but because it MIGHT help keep more people from believing the BS.

And in this case, the idea that Iraq was justified, or that Bush & Co. did not lie or deceive in order to go into Iraq, is total BS.

You leave out the possibility that people find republican arguments sound and convincing, and democratic arguments silly (when they have an actual argument, and aren't just saying whatever is the opposite of what a republican said). That could be another reason "stuff like that" convinces people.

This is partially true. In some circles, liberal is considered an insult. But I remember reading a story around 2-3 months ago that in print and on TV talking heads are more likely to be identified as conservative than liberal, even when the label would be apt for the liberal commentator, or the conservative tag unnecessary.

I wonder if you would go to the same lengths to stop democratic propaganda.

One of the main problems I have with how dems/liberals think, is that for all their claims of logic and thought, they don't recognise even the possibility of their views being wrong. Their ideas/slogans/propaganda get elevated to unshakable truths and dogma that any religious institution would be proud of in it's followers. This is also true in many conservatives/republicans, but they have a different approach to how they attempt to communicate. They don't set themselves up as paragons of logic and intelligence; they seem to allow for more faith into following their line.

Well when they're continuing to push the idea that Iraq was dangerous (no WMDs) and had something to do with 9/11 (they didn't) anyone who finds it sound and convincing hasn't checked the facts and is only listening to the republican arguments. That's what I'm fighting against.





I would and I have. There are several threads in this fourm where I've come out and said something or other the democrats have said or done is utter crap. Don't misunderstand me here - I'm no fan of the democrats. They've got a better idea for what is good for the country but they're unwilling to take a firm stand, make a plan, and stick to it. This wishy washy crap they pull pisses me off no end, as does their unwillingness to defend themselves. Frankly if a viable candidate from any other party than the two major ones were to run I'd be rooting for that one.



And republicans do? Hell even faced with mountains of evidence Bush supporters are still claiming Saddam had something to do with 9/11. They still believe what the president says even though he's been caught in so many other lies.



Actually that's where you're the most wrong, and it's the biggest problem for the dems. They're TOO willing to hear the other side. The republicans have grabbed power (again) because they picked a message and they stick with it.
It's not a message I agree with, but it's a lot easier for people to follow a leader who says one thing over and over again and never changes the core message (even when he has to change all the justifications for that core message dozens of time - see "justification for war on Iraq") than it is to follow a leader who vascillates and never takes a firm stand on hardly anything.




Which republicans have you been listening to, becasue that's simply not true for the ones I've heard.

Not 9/11 per-say, but terrorism defiantely.

stevo...i think the burden is then to be very specific about that terrorism. it is not enough to show Arab men in grainy photos and use a vague guilt by association. there needs to be conclusive documentation that our campaign in iraq has something to do with the broader campaign against terror groups.

however, i will note...i think it is entirely immoral to simply select a country that did not have significant terror links (beyond internal terrorism which we had helped support through the lovely gift of biological weaponry, the perfect gift for the dicator who has everything) and invade to use the local populace as terrorism decoys. So we're fighting them there. There had people in it. There was somebody's home.

The civilian casualties have been staggaring. So we're not fighting them in America and there has been no 9/11 again. Take iraqi casualties of civilians, divide by 3000. I think using a conservative estimate, there have been the equilvalent of seven 9/11 scale tragedies in iraq due to our intervention.

If another country wanted to fight some worthy fight on our soil, and that it would only cost thousands upon thousands of civilian lives...what do you think our response would be? Over there wasn't a barren waste. It was somebody's country.

The difficulty I have with any general statements about liberals and conservatives is that there are many of each on this board that don't fit the typical generalizations. It is patently untrue that liberals as a whole never recognize the possibility of their views being wrong. I've seen (apparent) liberals recognize when they are wrong many times on this board. I do agree that many professional politicians on both sides don't recognize the possibility of their views being wrong (at least not publicly). (That may be what you meant).

Do you mean that liberals set themselves up as paragons of logic and intelligence when in actuality they're just like the rest of us? Or do you mean that acting logical and intelligent is a flaw? I'm guessing you mean the former rather than the latter.

Also, what do you mean by Do you mean that there is more room for religious individuals in the Republican party? Or do you mean that it's easier to just trust your leaders and not question them in the Republican party? Again, I'm guessing that you mean the former rather than the later. But either way, this statement about liberals seems to suggest that faith is bad.

The statement is (obviously) a generalization, but I don't limit it to politicians.


I mean both (at least in a political context, and with regard to logic). For the most part, dems/liberals aren't half as logical and intelligent as they think themselves to be.

And as for the latter interpretation, a convincing argument need not be logical. That is one of the reasons that dems fail, and leads into my next point about faith.

What I meant by faith is a belief that isn't necessarily supported fully by logic. At first, I had thought intution might be a better word, and it still might be in hindsight. Republican arguments are often more easily accepted by their faithful and those without affiliation because they allow for more feeling and instinct. Like the war in Iraq-even though the Bush admin gave many reasons for the Iraqi invasion, many people ignore those because they feel that the invasion was a good thing to do. They don't need long logically thought out reassons, it's just something they feel. Getting rid of a sadistic dictator=good.


The problem arrises when many liberals behave the same way because they dont seem to allow for the same intuition in their arguments. So they are easier to discredit in many people's eyes.

Notice that I never said which is a "better" approach, but merely that one is more effective.

Lack of WMD doesn't mean that a country isn't dangerous. Those are two separate things. As for 9/11 connections, there's none I know of with any validity.


It's mainly the political leaders that I see as being wishy-washy, some of the fringe dem officials and most of their core base seem more than able to hold a view.

And as for them having a better idea of what's good for this country, I strongly disagree (but that's probably obvious)


The belief that there's this mountain of lies put out by the Bush admin is exactly one of the beliefs I was talking about when I said liberals are as dogmatic as any religion. Even though that has been repeatedly disproven, they hold this belief still and will chant it forever.


There are just as many mindlessly chanted slogans held up by liberals. There is also little willingness in most dems to listen to the other side. As for leaders vascillating, that's mainly a few dems who have higher political aspirations trying to appease as many people as possible, or just following whatever some public oppinion poll is saying that day.

Do you mean "effective" in the sense of attracting votes?

Also, just to be clear, Republican arguments/postions are more effective because they don't require thinking and allow their members to follow on faith?

You seem to suggest that the use of intuition and faith is what makes Republican arguments effective. I've interacted with intelligent and logical conservatives who don't use faith or intuition in their arguments. Do your think that the communicative strategies used by the Republican party to attract voters/support are different from the strategies they use to develop their political positions?

I don't think this is the case, but if the strategies are the same, if liberals use logic and intelligence, and conservatives use intuition and faith, I don't see much hope in any discussion between liberals and conservatives. Any discussion would be like one between a scientist and a creationist.

For the record, I never once rallied behind Bush, even in the aftermath of 9/11.

9/11 really fucked this country up. I'm not talking about the attacks themselves, but the asshole politicians that try to persuade others into doing things by bringing it up. Since people are stupid and follow what everyone else does, of course things get changed.

It's very similar to how the whiny groups around this country get things changed by uttering "oh please, think of the children." Oh, what, you don't fall for "think of the children"? Damn, you must be a sociopath.

The 9/11 excuse is old and tiresome now. Any politician that still brings it up to this day to gain some type of non-existant advantage should be shot.

stevo: when earlier you said this:
i understand that there will always be predispositions that enter into an interpretation--but controlling for that is a function of debate/discussion. but what i am curious about is whether you believe, as you seem to from the above, that complete information (what would that mean?) is possible? or that it is required before you could make judgements about the world routed through information as opposed to through prior committments?

i am just wondering if there is an impossible standard here.

from my experience in the wonderful world of doing history, i can tell you that information is never--ever--complete and never--ever--without "bias" but somehow folk mange to assemble it anyway, control for such limitations as they can and put forward arguments about the past. they are all, in the end, arguments (the notion that history is history is absurd--history is argument about the past based on fragments--think about it--if you were to imagine yourself the subject of a historical biography by someone say 70 years from now, and that person were to base the bio exclusively on the written trail you leave behind, how much about you would you think that person could possibly know?)

alansmithee:

yours seems a more extreme position than stevo outlines for himself--in his case, it looks to me like there is at least an attempt to process political position and information together--even if, in the end, this relation seems to get disrupted by a desire for total information--which is impossible--and so this deisre collapses back on an extreme suspicion of information. this means that there is one type of discussion to be had maybe--but your position seems to preclude that.

you say that folk who oppose conservativeland in all its variants cannot understand that conservative arguments appeal to some people. that is ridiculous---it seems pretty obvious, even from the fact that you posted the claim, that thereis no debate about that part. but when pressed on what it is about these arguments that you, for example, find to be compelling, you say refer to terms like faith, intuition, emotion, etc. none of these refer to the world outside you--they refer to your aesthetic preferences...

faith, intuition, emotion: what kind of bases are these for a political position? particularly in a democratic (or even american-style pseudo-democratic) system? isn't this kind of political position=faith, emotion, intuition a way of rendering any and all propositions about the world entirely non-falsifiable?
and if that is the case, what exactly is the point of debate?

and your characterization of this fiction called "liberal" argument--fiction because there is no single position opposed to the right that is the mirror image of the right--sorry about that, but its true--the contemporary right is a very strange phenomenon--anyway, you seem to be working with a cartoon understanding of the range of arguments that oppose conservative ideology an the grounds on which they operate. but from your two statements, i wonder if it would be possible at any time for a "liberal" argument to be compelling for you?
it sounds like the answer would be no--but maybe i'm wrong.
if i am not, however--again----what is the point of debate?

Yes and sort of. Republicans are better able to distill complex issues into something easily consumed by the average person.

I also try to leave faith and intuition out of my arguments. But I'm not most people. And I do think that (most) Republicans use logic and intelligence to develop their positions, and then make it something more easily understood for the masses.

I see little hope in discussion as well, but not for the reasons you listed. Notice I earlier said that liberals attempt to use logic and intelligence, not that they succeed. This is one of the things I said earlier helped make liberal arguments less convincing-they try to elevate the terms of discussion, making people engage more fully. Then their arguments fail on that level because they resort to faith and intuition after they were the ones who wanted to use logic. No, the reason most discussion between liberals and conservatives is hopeless for understanding is because they have largely different views on what is indeed good and bad.

Are you arguing that conservatives use logic and intelligence to develop their arguments and liberals "attempt" to use logic and intelligence? Or are you arguing that both conservatives and liberals use logic and intelligence to develop their arguments, but liberals make the mistake of using the guise (for lack of a better word) of logic and intelligence to communicate their message to "the masses? Both positions may be equally flawed, but conservatives don't pretend that their positions and logical and intelligent?

Discussions that involve using logic and intelligence are what interest me. I find arguments from either side that require the use of faith or intution frustrating.

In itself, that doesn't seem like a bad thing.

That may be the case...

I think this thread poses a great case study for politics and the divisveness of our nation.

Both sides are arguing, neither listens nor compromises and both refuse to see that the other does have some valid points.

Unless we can start having civil discussions, allowing the other side to have their valid points and acknowledge them, we seriously will continue to divide until there is a violent break.

Upon further reflection, I don't think that liberal and conservatives have largely different views on what is good and bad. I think that liberals and conservatives agree on many, many moral issues. Even on those issues where liberals and conservatives are supposed to disagree, members within the ranks may agree. I don't qualify as a member of either rank, but on some issues I hold what might be considered a "conservative" positions. On others, I hold what might be considered a "liberal" position. I doubt that the ranks of either party are politically or morally homogenous.

Also, I do think that there are debates between liberals and conservatives that can be useful. As roachboy mentioned: . I tend to agree.

roachboy, your lines of questioning and your running commentary on these threads, generally, and much more so lately, cause me to draw a comparison to a scenario where you, as an anthropologist, or possibly a news reporter from a large, west coast based media outlet, visits......say....Amish folk in Lancaster county, PA., with an intent on examining why, for example, these folks live such a quaint and anachronistic lifestyle, with a near universal shunning of the connection of electrical power or telephone lines to their homes.

You dig away at their belief sytem, asking why some of them can rationalize the accomodation of a telephone, located out in a field some distance from their home, wired to a free standing pole. You inquire as to why they find a gasoline powered clothes washer tolerable, but relegate themselves to horse and buggy for their personal transportation, instead of gasoline powered vehicles, and why they have less resistance to replacing horse drawn plows with modern tractors, than they do to replacing their buggies with cars.
You conclude that one of their greatest, common aversions is to proximity to
electrical wiring and devices. They know why they live the way they do, but
they cannot explain the combination of tradition, religiously influenced societal behavior, and the edicts of their elders that have dictated the resulting practices and prohibitions in their current lifestyles. Facts about the safety and benefits of electricity and gasoline powered transport can only reach them on one level, and not enough to influence them to embrace these
technological innovations to any further extent.

Care must be taken by the inquisitor not to lose sight of the fact that these curious subjects are people, and not specimens, much easier to do when you are questioning folks more similar to the Amish, "plain people", folks who just want to be left alone, to themselves, then when your subjects represent a group with an ambitious, externalized agenda.

host--well yes. i actually was thinking that this aspect of my engagement here would come off as you say. thing is, it may in fact be as you say, so frankly i find myself a bit caught out here.


i will say this much: thing is that i do not understand folk on the right as being fundamentally different from any of us--not in any way, frankly.

on the other hand, i have been tracking the development of this new variant of hard right ideology masquerading as simple "conservatism" for over a decade at this point, initially focussing on the milita right (it had a kind of watching-a-horror-film appeal) and learning the outlines of various really extreme rightwing folk--and i monitored the virtual disappearance of that space after oklahoma city from its curious version of being-public--only to find--to my horror--that much the same ideological position was being reprocessed by people like limbaugh very early on--limbaugh fascinated and repelled me for a while because i took him to be something of a translation machine, and watching how his discourse evolved (or devolved, depending on your viewpoint) was an interesting exercise in a process of transposition--and a really clear index of the decision taken at some level within the republican apparatus--or maybe on the part of very wealthy folk who agreed that a new populist hard right ideology could be disseminated (i dont know which)--but limbaugh proved to be an excellent case study in the ways in whcih this new conservative ideology tried to assimilate all kinds of whackjob positions that had perviously been well to the right of the republican party and recode them as features that define his listenership--who he defined as "real americans" the "silent many" the "eternal victim" and all that.

all this to set up what i have to say here: what i understood myself to be listening to and working out was the development of a new political formation. and what struck me about this formation from the start is the extraordinary consistency of major positions across conservative folk who adhere to it...this cannot be explained by any combination of individual features, really--because they way in which these consistencies were expressed seemed ot me to inevitably come back to a type or types of argument. so i focussed on modelling this type of argument.

the predicates keep changing are internally contradictory and so forth--but the logic is pretty much the same and its general structure is, i think, most simply outlined by the model that i talked about earlier in this thread.


but this was never a formal project--i wasn't documenting so much as just hanging out and paying attention and reading--but as i spent more time thinking about this stuff, i started to get alarmed by what i saw it as entailing--and all i can say is that bushworld since 9/11/2001 has made me seem, in many ways, kinda pollyanna about it.

last thing: i work as a historian and my research has been for some time about trying to figure out how to explain and talk about the collapse of marxism as a cultural space if you like. one level of that is about discourse analysis. so i know how to do this work by now and am pretty efficient at it. and this engagement occupies a significant area in how i think about politics.

when i decided to start hanging around here i decided that i would be vague about my background and what i do and operate in citizen mode---because i find the ideology i was tracking to be almost dizzyingly repellent i wanted to provide myself with a mobile space in which to float arguments against it. but i was also really fascinated to see how various folk held together what i took to be contradictory positions, and particularly how this mechanism of dissonance reduction worked to eliminate/erase problematic information about either the ideology itself or the characters who are supposed to embody or represent it.

but the analytic side of things was always working always working. and i found that as time went on i would slip in and out of it here. the only problem that raised in my mind was that i might come across like i was not so much participating as visiting a zoo--which is not the case, but whatever, i guess i have to live with the conclusion that i could be because i set up the premises myself.

so there we are.

one other thing--i do not think that the amish analogy works except at a surface level: i do not find anything quaint about this conservative formation. i do not think that the people who see themselves and their world through it are quaint. i think they are not much different from anyone else--i assume some general factors woudl differentiate "them" from not them--like i know almost no conservatives of this type in any of the cities with which i am familiar, in which i have spent time, either directly or through anyone i know. that is very different in the suburbs, where the rest of my family lives, for example.

so when i try to work this stuff out--what is this formation, how does it work, why to people find it compelling--i am looking at a political space that enables folk with whom one might speak reasonably and hang out with and whose company you might enjoy at all kinds of levels to hold quasi-fascist views. if this was some kind of quaint backwater, it probably wouldnt interest me at all. and even if it did, there would be no sense of danger about the space (little likelihood of amish hegemony any time soon)...

dunno...i address what you say the only way i can.

Do I get to have a straw hat? I've always liked straw hats. :thumbsup:

Very close to your second scenario. I believe both sides use primarily logic and intelligence in formating their beliefs, positions, etc. But through this there is some illogic, faith, whatever. When republicans present their platforms, they rely more on the illogic and faith to gain votes, with logic taking a back seat, but still present. Democrats often try to do the opposite. Of course, one stance has much higher burden of proof, and is easier to attack. So if a republican gives a speech about their view, when questioned their reasoning might be boiled down to "because it's right" with nothing definate about their point other than a shared belief in what's right. This isn't a logical view, but because of that it's hard to attack it from the standpoint of logic. Whereas a democrat might appeal to logic more initially, and be attacked on that point easier when their inherent illogic (if present) is pointed out.

Again, that does not put you in the average.


It wouldn't be, if they could maintain that standard.

Ill respond to your second post later, gtg again.

i don't normally involve myself in this forum, because i've spent too much time in "real-life" politics, but i would suggest that you, mr. ustwo, lay back on your innuendo...and yes, this is an "outside" mod speaking...

LOL

I couldn't agree more pan6467.

But when I made that point I was accused of being biased! :)


Mr Mephisto

This is why it is not inconceivable that there will be a second American Civil war in the not-too-distant future. Especially since now the Supreme Court will no longer be the rational voice of the people. But that's another thread...

I'd agree with that statement.

I can only take the condescension so long before I reply, in this case with humor, or does banter have no place in the politics board? What was I implying btw? The only innuendo I can find is host refering to some of us posters as backwards folk.

So just who will be revolting? I wouldn’t be surprised to see some small terrorist type groups spring up, it doesn't take that much to get a group of radicals together, but a revolution? No.

The exchange between Host and Roachboy is at a level of discourse that I believe can't be easily appreciated among the usual posters in politics.

Ustwo, to say that Host was referring to any poster in politics as backward folk and to add that he is being condescending because of your interpretation of his comments is not supportable.

If you carefully read the exchange between the two, without any knee-jerk bias, I believe you will find an extremely interesting dialogue.

Humor and banter have a place, but not in exchange for your considered opinion.

They have a perspective which can not be easily appreciated, not a level. The level of discourse is the same as everyone elses. host was quite plain in what he meant. Shall we take it appart?

Translation: Your discourse is at a much more sophisticated level than the people you are speaking to.

Translation: You are expecting them to accept your very logical and valid arguments based on the logic of them, you are not taking into account their indoctrination and world view. You are interpreting their reactions based on logic, not their illogical upbringing. Your facts will not convince them to change their views.

Translation: You are talking down in your posts to these simple people, not people who want to change the world like you and me, who think beyond themselves and their way of life.

i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about...and i've been following this thread since it's inception...please enlighten me as to your specific point...

The Amish men are known for wearing straw hats.

Host was refering to some of us posters as like the Amish to roachboys superiority.

As such I was hoping to wear a straw hat, I happen to like them (and they are saddly out of style).

http://www.bio-itworld.com/images/08...SIDS-amish.jpg

and this relates to the thread topic?

I'm confused too.


I observed host employing (to roachboy) the innuendo that those who disagreed with him (that would be ustwo, mainly) were somewhat unsophisticated, like the Amish.

I followed ustwo's statement. It was a humorous reply, in the absence of a warning to host.

I'd appreciate it if you'd explain the innuendo that you detected in ustwo's "straw hat" comment.

It would help all of us avoid committing a similar offense.

I didn't read that Host was being condescending to anyone here. However, it is up to Host to say what his intentions were.

Did hosts post relate to the thread topic?

No it was an open letter and a telling one of the level of arrogance involved.

I made light of this arrogance.

funny, ustwo--that's not at all how i took host's post.
but i do imagine you'd look pretty swell in a straw hat.

I mostly agree with your assessment of the terrorist situation as described above. I hope that the sacrifices our troops and their families are making are not being done in vain.

I fear that people indoctrinated as you describe, once they have some sort of democracy, may well vote themselves back an Islamic dictatorship and we (and they) will be right back where we started.

How to win the hearts and minds will be the long term goal. Perhaps if they stay free enough for long enough and are exposed to uncensored news they will at least not think of us as the great satin that must be destroyed at all costs.

While this is always a possibility, Iraq does have the advantage of being a secular state to start with, and the results of the general election in this regard are promising. The key will be getting the Iraqi education system up to some sort of acceptable standard. Education, particularly history education in the arab world is carefully distorted and designed to keep the people hating the west, and celebrating the concept of islamic governments. I posted excessively on this in the past, though the posts are long buried.

My post was in reaction to this exchange:
I attempted to draw a comparison, from my point of view, of the challenges that a scientist or a news reporter would face in trying to process and then document the viewpoint of Amish people who "come[s] down to beliefs. and beliefs are hard to change", -stevo
and..........
"because i think it most strange that it is so difficult to get folk from the right to explain why they hold certain views, how these views fit with others, and how they fit with data about the world." -roachboy
and........
"that conservative politics seems to me to be about a particular personal belief that is defined as much be reacting against the outside as it is about anything positive from the inside, and that this belilef leans pretty heavily on a kind of religious committment as its model." -roachboy

I selected the Amish, and described them as <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1828055&postcount=159">"liv[ing] such a quaint and anachronistic lifestyle"</a> because I think that this is what is most interesting about them, to many outsiders. I attempted to make the point that it may not be possible for roachboy "to get folk from the right to explain why they hold certain views, how these views fit with others, and how they fit with data about the world." The similarity with the Amish is that when conclusions are influenced by "belief" and "a kind of religious committment", with "family values" and the dictates of elders, roachboy might as well be the anthropologist trying to find out how the Amish accomodate the use of some technology that seems similar to technology that they prohibit the use of.

Maybe my point would have been clearer if I compared the opinions of creationists to those who embrace the theory of evolution.

The last sentence in my post was in response to this, by roachboy, "and partly because i think the patterns i noted are new and frankly are dangerous if you value anything like a democratic process that necessarily involves debate". I edited it 2 or 3 times, after I posted, to make doubly sure that my point would not be obscured by the very allegations that I've avoided responding to, until it became obvious that it is appropriate to add my "take".

Um, hate to pick nits here, but the Amish are very well aware of what goes on in the outside world. They have a "rite of passage", for lack of a better term, in which the young people are sent out into the world and are basically cut loose to do whatever they want. After a certain amount of time, they get to choose if they want to live in the Amish tradition or if they want to stay in the modern world. They are not naive about what goes on and what the options are, they just choose to live how they want to live. As for their use of technology, for example cellphones, they may use them because they are necessary professionally, but they leave them outside of the house because they don't want to corrupt what they hold dear. (I've used Amish builders/contractors before.) They reject the technology because they feel it basically enslaves them. Having spent X number of years carrying around my cellphone, when I'm accessable pretty much 24/7 to the people who may need to contact me in an employment-related emergency, they may have a point.

Host, from my perspective, I don't know how you could have made your point more clear.
If this is the first time your post has been maligned into something totally alien to what you meant, and then picked apart by fanboys, welcome to the club...

I'm as certain as I can be that just about everyone understood exactly what you meant...and didn't intend to imply. Evidently there wasn't enough agitation on the politics board for ustwo's taste, so he felt the need to create a problem when there wasn't one.

for what it's worth--even though i was really clear about this in my response to host--i felt a bit caught out by his post--but there is nothing condescending in it--it simply reflected the tension that exists when you are on the one hand thinking about a something as an analytic question and talking to folk who are involved in that same issue at the same time--there is always a danger that you will start treating the people you are speaking to as specimens..it's not about being condescending--it is about the appearance of being condescending that can come about quite against your will simply because you are thinking in two different ways about the same questions.

that ustwo confused appearance for reality does not surprise me, and i have nothing to say either to or about it beyond that.

but his reaction--his interpretation--has no contact whatsoever with either how i think about folk on this board or anywhere else, no contact whatsoever with how i took host's post or the exchange that followed. with the result that i cannot fathom what the motive might have been behind his posts.

Disconnect
 

The fact that the current administration prides itself with being bi-partisan seems out of place with Karl Rove's speech. Modern politics has become a verbal boxing match with the news media as the commentator.

The government would be more efficient and effective if officials respected each others ideological differences. Then they might actually engage in intellectual discourse instead of disconnecting verbiage that causes defensiveness.

Referee, commentator, or cheerleader?