moosenose

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.

shakran

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.

moosenose

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...

Hardknock

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.

moosenose

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.

shakran

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.

martinguerre

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.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Mephisto2

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

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

powerclown

I LOVE IT!

BETTER THAN COLOMBO!

shakran

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.

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cynthetiq

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

stevo

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.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

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.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

moosenose

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.

shakran

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

Mephisto2

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

stevo

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.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

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

shakran

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.

alansmithee

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.

shakran

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.

stevo

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

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

martinguerre

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.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

sapiens

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.

alansmithee

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.

alansmithee

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.

sapiens

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.

Stompy

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.

__________________
I love lamp.

roachboy

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?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

alansmithee

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.

sapiens

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...

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

sapiens

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.

host

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.

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite