Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Michael Moore

smooth · 12-15-2003, 12:14 PM

What exactly are you guys arguing in support of?

Are you supportive of our government's tampering with the will of citizens of foreign countries?

Are you concerned that our past dealings with questionable and dangerous people in the past had consistently exacerbated the problems and bad-will abroad?

From a few statements in the past I realize that a few posters view this forum as an outlet for competition--a place for discussion becomes a venue for you to "win" the argument.

I can't think of a single time that we've aided a dictator to power that hasn't ended up harming our long-term interests. In the very least, I can't think of an occasion where it hasn't harmed innocent people--even if they weren't US citizens. On the one hand, people will state that the interests of our citizens is paramount. Yet, on the other, those same people, in a different argument, will claim to be motivated by altruism. I think this is bizarre reasoning and the only thing I can account for it is due to the belief that winning an argument is the objective--not rational discussion.

For example, Conclamo Ludus, you stated that the past dealings with Saddam were common knowledge. When Superbelt expressed the opinion that the public actually knows very little about our foreign affairs, you asked what the point of that assertion was. It was clear to me, and I suspect numerous people reading it, that the point is that unless we become aware of our foreign policies, we willt continue to place our long-term interests in jeopardy. If nothing else, we need to be informed before judging whether certain dealings are in our long-term interests.

Then you follow with a statement challenging whether members of our current administration have actually been involved in dealings with foreign dictators. This seems to contradict your earlier assertion that such dealings were common knowledge. Furthermore, I think you are aware of the things we are currently doing abroad, so I wonder what the intent of your challenge was.

Do you need Superbelt to "prove" that our government is currently bolstering the power of foreign dictators through direct and indirect dealings? Or are you just going to declare "victory" if he doesn't bother tracing down page after page from the International sections of any current newspaper editions?

In case people have ceased reading by now, I'll bold my point:

This is evidence that we ought not to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations, their election of leaders, or rely on the less circumspect position that the "enemies of our enemies are somehow our allies."

12-15-2003, 12:14 PM	#29 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	What exactly are you guys arguing in support of? Are you supportive of our government's tampering with the will of citizens of foreign countries? Are you concerned that our past dealings with questionable and dangerous people in the past had consistently exacerbated the problems and bad-will abroad? From a few statements in the past I realize that a few posters view this forum as an outlet for competition--a place for discussion becomes a venue for you to "win" the argument. I can't think of a single time that we've aided a dictator to power that hasn't ended up harming our long-term interests. In the very least, I can't think of an occasion where it hasn't harmed innocent people--even if they weren't US citizens. On the one hand, people will state that the interests of our citizens is paramount. Yet, on the other, those same people, in a different argument, will claim to be motivated by altruism. I think this is bizarre reasoning and the only thing I can account for it is due to the belief that winning an argument is the objective--not rational discussion. For example, Conclamo Ludus, you stated that the past dealings with Saddam were common knowledge. When Superbelt expressed the opinion that the public actually knows very little about our foreign affairs, you asked what the point of that assertion was. It was clear to me, and I suspect numerous people reading it, that the point is that unless we become aware of our foreign policies, we willt continue to place our long-term interests in jeopardy. If nothing else, we need to be informed before judging whether certain dealings are in our long-term interests. Then you follow with a statement challenging whether members of our current administration have actually been involved in dealings with foreign dictators. This seems to contradict your earlier assertion that such dealings were common knowledge. Furthermore, I think you are aware of the things we are currently doing abroad, so I wonder what the intent of your challenge was. Do you need Superbelt to "prove" that our government is currently bolstering the power of foreign dictators through direct and indirect dealings? Or are you just going to declare "victory" if he doesn't bother tracing down page after page from the International sections of any current newspaper editions? In case people have ceased reading by now, I'll bold my point: This is evidence that we ought not to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations, their election of leaders, or rely on the less circumspect position that the "enemies of our enemies are somehow our allies." __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 12-15-2003 at 12:23 PM..