what did you expect? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-09-2005, 06:01 PM

So what? Shakran was making the point "Get out of my country..." , pretty funny that the number one problem in Iraq isn't Iraqi and is affiliated with Al Qaeda.

roachboy · 02-09-2005, 06:06 PM

that is meaningless, mojo.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-09-2005, 06:09 PM

How is it meaningless?

C4 Diesel · 02-09-2005, 06:17 PM

Because you're not addressing the current problem! Yes, some of the problem is international, but people from other countries can cause dissent, death, chaos, fear, and everything else just like someone from Iraq can!

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-09-2005, 06:18 PM

They are the majority of the current problem!!! Zarqawi and his goons are the ones kidnapping people, beheading foreign and non-foreign people, they are the guys lobbing grenades at voters, they are the ones suicide bombing Iraqi police, military, and hospital installations.

MoonDog · 02-09-2005, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

...i reiterate my basic challenge to folk who support the war to spell out their positions in the kind of way that they have tried to pressure those of us who opposed and oppose this war to do.

The problem I have is that I wasn't one of the war supporters who tried to place pressure on people like you, Host, and others who were against it. I can totally understand why you didn't want us in Iraq, just as I can totally understand why - after discovering that there were no WMD's in Iraq - you'd be angry and distrustful of the Bush Administration. I hold a different line of reasoning for the war that, when it became expedient to do so, the Administration picked up on...Regime Change.

Quote:

as for the matter of politics being a question of belief--well, most beliefs are rooted in some kind of contact with a world beyond them. so are convictions. both are amenable to testing--i expect that you, like anyone, indulges testing all the time. if you use either belief or conviction as a device to make all political argument arbitrary, and if this reflects a wider pattern (and i believe it does) then we are all in a pretty sorry state of affairs in which nothing can be refuted by recourse to either evidence or argument: when that goes out the window, so does even the slightest pretense to democratic process. but maybe you prefer abandoning even those faint traces of democracy that still float about in the american system. for myself, i think the consequences of it are too high.

As I read this second paragraph, I can't help but think that you have overdone the hyperbole. I'll say this - I don't believe that arguing - especially in a setting like this - will result in a change in anyone's opinion. BUT, I do HOPE that, when exposed to differing opinions, along with credible resources to back them up, a person can at least reach a level of understanding of that viewpoint, and perhaps eventually come to a mutually agreeable mid-point.

Your statement regarding the "faint traces of democracy that still float about in the american system"...were you serious? Do you honestly believe that democracy is all but eliminated from the American system of governance? Call me naive, but I hope to not ever reach that level of cynicism. Of course, I've been involved in local politics, as well as state politics to a degree, for over 10 years now. It's not a perfect system, but it seems to be working at our local levels at least. I can understand such cynicism as we talk about upper level state and national politics.

C4 Diesel · 02-09-2005, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

They are the majority of the current problem!!! Zarqawi and his goons are the ones kidnapping people, beheading foreign and non-foreign people, they are the guys lobbing grenades at voters, they are the ones suicide bombing Iraqi police, military, and hospital installations.

So because of this there's less of a problem? You're avoiding my questions, and not providing any logic. How does the "insurgent" force being (arguably) primarily international make the problem any less severe?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-09-2005, 07:02 PM

There's not less of a problem, there is less legitimacy.

I'm not avoiding any questions, I haven't really seen any put forth, throw some my way and I'll be more then glad to clarify.

And if, and it's not even an if, the insurgents are primarily Iraqi, but if they were foreign terrorists and not Iraqi insurgents, the problem would be less severe because the problem wouldn't be with Iraqi's only asshat terrorists trying to establish a theocracy, (gasp) wait that's still happening.

C4 Diesel · 02-09-2005, 07:59 PM

I still don't understand why you believe that a Iraqi insurgency of the equal size and ability would be any less damaging than the current international one. Why is this your opinion? Is the current international insurgent force no less able to wreak havoc in many ways and cause instability?

And if you would, please define "legitimacy" as you are using it.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-09-2005, 08:11 PM

They Iraqi's have more legitimacy because it is their country. And I'm not really talking about damaging in any sense, I suppose I factor that into legitimacy. The fact is that a majority of the Iraqi insurgents are ex-baathists, Saddam loyalists, and mainly sunni. Because of that I don't think they are legitimate, the majority of Iraqi's are Coalition friendly or at least indifferent, and they are at least working to get us out of there.

And the international force is plenty capable of causing instability, they are better at it then the Iraqi's, I just think they are whack because they are trying to impose their ways on Iraq and it's anymore their country then it is ours.

Legitimacy as in, truly representative of the people. Whether 15,000 or 250,000, it is no more then 1% of the population, that is a vast vast minority. The rest of the Iraqi's are participating in their country trying to make it better, or at least not making it worse. THe vast minority is trying to retain power they lost, and can't ge back, it's all for naught for them, or they are not trying to instill their radical beliefs on the Iraqi's. You also have to look at the tactics employed, namely terrorism, that is not a legit tactic, it is cowardly and self defeating, I have a feeling that's why so manyn Iraqi's voted.

Hope that helps some.

C4 Diesel · 02-10-2005, 04:59 AM

Okay... Whether I agree with that reasoning or not doesn't really matter... It's subjective. My next question then becomes: If they are equally damaging to Iraq regardless, why does it matter whether they're legitimate or not?

roachboy · 02-10-2005, 08:55 AM

moon: i should maybe make paragraph seperations when i change referents--my way of writing is curious-looking enough that it creates confusion sometimes...that part of the paragraph wasnt directed particularly at you. an i understood from the outset that a position like what i take yours to be would result in a different narrative--what i was asking was for you (or anyone who has roughly the same position) to explain the premises, subject the argument to scrutiny like any argument can and should be.

as for the comments about american pseudo-democracy:
several contextual points first
1. i have enjoyed, in a perverse way, reading and hearing conservative pundits making a big big point about how the states is a republic, not a democracy, and then move from there to an association of democracy and socialism.
2. at the more important, structural level, it has been pretty clear for some time that the right's strategy for dealing with unpleasant critiques of their position has been to flood the information arena with pseudo-information in order to make meaingful debate nearly impossible. you see it around environmental conflicts, with corporations hiring pet scientists to generate studies that counter accusations from environmentalists about pollution levels for example. these studies are meant to neutralize debate. same kind of thing in any number of quadrants. it seems that this constitutes an underpinning of conservative media strategy in general.
3. couple this with a style of argument that results in claims like your own: that politics is a matter of belief/conviction as if these categories superceded interacting with a wider world and/or data about that world.
4. you might argue that "democracy" in america still operates at the local level--well fine--but it is a funny claim in a way in that it links directly to the above patterns of attempting to neutralize large-scale public debate by undercutting correlations between political premises and data about the world, reducing politics to questions of belief/convictions--both of which are rendered arbitrary--and thereby non-falsifiable. maybe this converges on the conservative suspicion of the notion of the public--which should be atomized and focussed on small/local issues--the result is that any conception of the whole disappears--and with that the political check(s) on the actions of firms/governmental forms that operate at a larger scale. taken to the limit, this is a recipe for a new feudalism. and sometimes i think what the conservatives in america really object to it the legacy of the magna carta, the centralization of power in any form.
except when they control it of course.
then everything is hunky dory.

given the above, you will perhaps understand what i am saying in the post you reacted to. the position i argue is not a simple function of cynicism--a tendency i try to fight because it is in many ways too easy---but rather a mapping of what i take to be the larger-scale conditions that obtain onto micro-developments like the deterioration/mutation of this thread (we'll see how it goes, i guess, before deciding on the adjective)

sadly, there is little hyperbole in the post. were that things were otherwise.

stevo · 02-10-2005, 09:08 AM

Oh no, I think roach has us figured out! Quick someone silence him before he reveals even more deep dark secrets. Oh I sure hope he doesn't have those pictures of me taking food from childrens' mouths and poking the elderly with long sticks.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
yeah

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-10-2005, 09:25 AM

Use the amnesia ray Smithers.

roachboy · 02-10-2005, 09:34 AM

that's hilarious folks--i dont suppose that you have anything of substance to add, do you?

i'll wait here.

Willravel · 02-10-2005, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

that's hilarious folks--i dont suppose that you have anything of substance to add, do you?

i'll wait here.

I guess you forgot #5
5. When confronted with a very cut and dry argument that clearly points out faults and addresses their agruments head on, they respond with sarcasm and short, unspecific answers. When you confront them on it, they move on to another conversation.

ObieX · 02-10-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Use the amnesia ray Smithers.

You mean the revolver, sir?

C4 Diesel · 02-10-2005, 02:01 PM

Well, looks like this thread fell apart. Sarcasm is great, isn't it?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-10-2005, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

You mean the revolver, sir?

Excellent

MoonDog · 02-10-2005, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

moon: i should maybe make paragraph seperations when i change referents--my way of writing is curious-looking enough that it creates confusion sometimes...that part of the paragraph wasnt directed particularly at you. an i understood from the outset that a position like what i take yours to be would result in a different narrative--what i was asking was for you (or anyone who has roughly the same position) to explain the premises, subject the argument to scrutiny like any argument can and should be.

as for the comments about american pseudo-democracy:
several contextual points first
1. i have enjoyed, in a perverse way, reading and hearing conservative pundits making a big big point about how the states is a republic, not a democracy, and then move from there to an association of democracy and socialism.
2. at the more important, structural level, it has been pretty clear for some time that the right's strategy for dealing with unpleasant critiques of their position has been to flood the information arena with pseudo-information in order to make meaingful debate nearly impossible. you see it around environmental conflicts, with corporations hiring pet scientists to generate studies that counter accusations from environmentalists about pollution levels for example. these studies are meant to neutralize debate. same kind of thing in any number of quadrants. it seems that this constitutes an underpinning of conservative media strategy in general.
3. couple this with a style of argument that results in claims like your own: that politics is a matter of belief/conviction as if these categories superceded interacting with a wider world and/or data about that world.
4. you might argue that "democracy" in america still operates at the local level--well fine--but it is a funny claim in a way in that it links directly to the above patterns of attempting to neutralize large-scale public debate by undercutting correlations between political premises and data about the world, reducing politics to questions of belief/convictions--both of which are rendered arbitrary--and thereby non-falsifiable. maybe this converges on the conservative suspicion of the notion of the public--which should be atomized and focussed on small/local issues--the result is that any conception of the whole disappears--and with that the political check(s) on the actions of firms/governmental forms that operate at a larger scale. taken to the limit, this is a recipe for a new feudalism. and sometimes i think what the conservatives in america really object to it the legacy of the magna carta, the centralization of power in any form.
except when they control it of course.
then everything is hunky dory.

given the above, you will perhaps understand what i am saying in the post you reacted to. the position i argue is not a simple function of cynicism--a tendency i try to fight because it is in many ways too easy---but rather a mapping of what i take to be the larger-scale conditions that obtain onto micro-developments like the deterioration/mutation of this thread (we'll see how it goes, i guess, before deciding on the adjective)

sadly, there is little hyperbole in the post. were that things were otherwise.

Well, I have to agree with the very first thing you say: I have a HELL of a time sifting through your verbiage to get to the meaning of your posts! Whew - exhausting! hehehe

1. Luckily, I don't equate democracy with socialism. And, like it or not, we have a degree of socialism already, no?

2. I won't argue that opponents to other views often choose to flood the discussion/debate with contrasting studies and reports. Thing is, you choose to label them with the blanket term "pseudo-information". I can agree with that term on specific issues, such as in the tobacco world, or is some environmental issues, but you expose your bias in calling all information that runs counter to your prevailing beliefs as "psuedo-information".

And, in using the tactic, does that not PROMOTE the discussion of the issue? Aren't the people who are supposed to make the decisiojns on our behalf supposed to sift through the information and arrive at a conclusion? I won't argue that the communication channel gets crowded, and that it breaks down often, but ideally, my government is supposed to look at both sides and make a decision.

3. Now, you keep referring to my "claim" that "...politics is a matter of belief/conviction as if these categories superceded interacting with a wider world and/or data about that world". Those are your words, not mine. My beliefs and convictions came about exactly because of my interactions with the world around me and the [trustworthy] data available to me. I have mentioned in an earlier post that the best one can hope for in these arguments is to present enough data in your position, along with good resources to that data, to hopefully encourage an understanding of your views. Or, if your good, a gradual move towards your viewpoint.

4. Who stated that either political beliefs or one's beliefs and convictions are always the gospel truth? Not I. Beliefs are what they are - beliefs. They may or may not be rooted in fact, but because they are what they are, they are often firmly entrenched into our sense of self.

I'm confused by the statement you make on conservatives "suspicion of the notion of the public". The conservatives I know certainly don't believe that people should stay involved with the local stuff and leave the higher levels of politics to those who "understand" it.

Anyhow, given the amount of time I am putting into this, and the very real possibility that neither of us will convince the other of the validity of the viewpoints, I'm inclined to drop this thread.

It's been nice exchanging with you though - keep up the fight!

MoonDog · 02-10-2005, 04:21 PM

Oh, and since no one ID'd my quote from earlier, I'll let you know who it was.
None other than Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson. The same guy that Host has as his avatar, and links to in his signature.

02-09-2005, 06:01 PM	#81 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	So what? Shakran was making the point "Get out of my country..." , pretty funny that the number one problem in Iraq isn't Iraqi and is affiliated with Al Qaeda. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-09-2005, 06:06 PM	#82 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	that is meaningless, mojo. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-09-2005, 06:09 PM	#83 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	How is it meaningless? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-09-2005, 06:17 PM	#84 (permalink)
C4 Diesel Crazy Location: Troy, NY	Because you're not addressing the current problem! Yes, some of the problem is international, but people from other countries can cause dissent, death, chaos, fear, and everything else just like someone from Iraq can! __________________ C4 to your door, no beef no more...

02-09-2005, 06:18 PM	#85 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	They are the majority of the current problem!!! Zarqawi and his goons are the ones kidnapping people, beheading foreign and non-foreign people, they are the guys lobbing grenades at voters, they are the ones suicide bombing Iraqi police, military, and hospital installations. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-09-2005, 07:02 PM	#88 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	There's not less of a problem, there is less legitimacy. I'm not avoiding any questions, I haven't really seen any put forth, throw some my way and I'll be more then glad to clarify. And if, and it's not even an if, the insurgents are primarily Iraqi, but if they were foreign terrorists and not Iraqi insurgents, the problem would be less severe because the problem wouldn't be with Iraqi's only asshat terrorists trying to establish a theocracy, (gasp) wait that's still happening. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 02-09-2005 at 07:16 PM..

02-09-2005, 07:59 PM	#89 (permalink)
C4 Diesel Crazy Location: Troy, NY	I still don't understand why you believe that a Iraqi insurgency of the equal size and ability would be any less damaging than the current international one. Why is this your opinion? Is the current international insurgent force no less able to wreak havoc in many ways and cause instability? And if you would, please define "legitimacy" as you are using it. __________________ C4 to your door, no beef no more...

02-09-2005, 08:11 PM	#90 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	They Iraqi's have more legitimacy because it is their country. And I'm not really talking about damaging in any sense, I suppose I factor that into legitimacy. The fact is that a majority of the Iraqi insurgents are ex-baathists, Saddam loyalists, and mainly sunni. Because of that I don't think they are legitimate, the majority of Iraqi's are Coalition friendly or at least indifferent, and they are at least working to get us out of there. And the international force is plenty capable of causing instability, they are better at it then the Iraqi's, I just think they are whack because they are trying to impose their ways on Iraq and it's anymore their country then it is ours. Legitimacy as in, truly representative of the people. Whether 15,000 or 250,000, it is no more then 1% of the population, that is a vast vast minority. The rest of the Iraqi's are participating in their country trying to make it better, or at least not making it worse. THe vast minority is trying to retain power they lost, and can't ge back, it's all for naught for them, or they are not trying to instill their radical beliefs on the Iraqi's. You also have to look at the tactics employed, namely terrorism, that is not a legit tactic, it is cowardly and self defeating, I have a feeling that's why so manyn Iraqi's voted. Hope that helps some. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-10-2005, 04:59 AM	#91 (permalink)
C4 Diesel Crazy Location: Troy, NY	Okay... Whether I agree with that reasoning or not doesn't really matter... It's subjective. My next question then becomes: If they are equally damaging to Iraq regardless, why does it matter whether they're legitimate or not? __________________ C4 to your door, no beef no more...

02-10-2005, 08:55 AM	#92 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	moon: i should maybe make paragraph seperations when i change referents--my way of writing is curious-looking enough that it creates confusion sometimes...that part of the paragraph wasnt directed particularly at you. an i understood from the outset that a position like what i take yours to be would result in a different narrative--what i was asking was for you (or anyone who has roughly the same position) to explain the premises, subject the argument to scrutiny like any argument can and should be. as for the comments about american pseudo-democracy: several contextual points first 1. i have enjoyed, in a perverse way, reading and hearing conservative pundits making a big big point about how the states is a republic, not a democracy, and then move from there to an association of democracy and socialism. 2. at the more important, structural level, it has been pretty clear for some time that the right's strategy for dealing with unpleasant critiques of their position has been to flood the information arena with pseudo-information in order to make meaingful debate nearly impossible. you see it around environmental conflicts, with corporations hiring pet scientists to generate studies that counter accusations from environmentalists about pollution levels for example. these studies are meant to neutralize debate. same kind of thing in any number of quadrants. it seems that this constitutes an underpinning of conservative media strategy in general. 3. couple this with a style of argument that results in claims like your own: that politics is a matter of belief/conviction as if these categories superceded interacting with a wider world and/or data about that world. 4. you might argue that "democracy" in america still operates at the local level--well fine--but it is a funny claim in a way in that it links directly to the above patterns of attempting to neutralize large-scale public debate by undercutting correlations between political premises and data about the world, reducing politics to questions of belief/convictions--both of which are rendered arbitrary--and thereby non-falsifiable. maybe this converges on the conservative suspicion of the notion of the public--which should be atomized and focussed on small/local issues--the result is that any conception of the whole disappears--and with that the political check(s) on the actions of firms/governmental forms that operate at a larger scale. taken to the limit, this is a recipe for a new feudalism. and sometimes i think what the conservatives in america really object to it the legacy of the magna carta, the centralization of power in any form. except when they control it of course. then everything is hunky dory. given the above, you will perhaps understand what i am saying in the post you reacted to. the position i argue is not a simple function of cynicism--a tendency i try to fight because it is in many ways too easy---but rather a mapping of what i take to be the larger-scale conditions that obtain onto micro-developments like the deterioration/mutation of this thread (we'll see how it goes, i guess, before deciding on the adjective) sadly, there is little hyperbole in the post. were that things were otherwise. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-10-2005, 09:08 AM	#93 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Oh no, I think roach has us figured out! Quick someone silence him before he reveals even more deep dark secrets. Oh I sure hope he doesn't have those pictures of me taking food from childrens' mouths and poking the elderly with long sticks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yeah

02-10-2005, 09:25 AM	#94 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Use the amnesia ray Smithers. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-10-2005, 09:34 AM	#95 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	that's hilarious folks--i dont suppose that you have anything of substance to add, do you? i'll wait here. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-10-2005, 02:01 PM	#98 (permalink)
C4 Diesel Crazy Location: Troy, NY	Well, looks like this thread fell apart. Sarcasm is great, isn't it? __________________ C4 to your door, no beef no more...

02-10-2005, 04:21 PM	#101 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	Oh, and since no one ID'd my quote from earlier, I'll let you know who it was. None other than Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson. The same guy that Host has as his avatar, and links to in his signature.