This is topic When Orson Scott Card is done campaigning for George Bush 2008 maybe he can read this in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.
While I can still respect someone for having their own beliefs and opinions, I can no longer respect Orson Scott Card and his continuous disdain for anyone who holds an opinion that is different from his own.
In the latest edition of "Uncle Orson Reviews Everything" Card argues that everything is going right in America and in Iraq and that anyone who states otherwise is completely wrong. I am sure that is true coming from someone who is sitting pretty on his stack of bestselling books in Pleasantville North Carolina.
No Mr. Card, things are still not going right here or anywhere else in the world but I guess I'm only saying that because it is an election year with a Republican incumbent. I'm sure if there was a democrat in the white house right now I would be saying everything is "rosy and no stories are bad. All actions were brilliant accomplishments; all inaction was wise rather than indolent or cowardly. Everything spins to the plus side."
Yeah, like Republicans don't know anything about SPIN. This isn't about Republicans and Democrats, or at least it shouldn't be. Unlike most people in this country, I do not blindly follow someone based on what party he is or automatically ignore or attack any opinion from the other party.
"We've had eight years with a president of extraordinary courage and moral strength and, yes, wisdom. Bad at selling himself to the people, but then, he had to contend with the continuous hostility of the press, so it's not as if we could ever get to know him without them filtering everything."
To this Mr. Card, I can only say that you must only be watching and listening to Fox News, and ignoring any other news source. Oh and isn't Bill O'Reilly, the Master of Spin himself on Fox News? Yeah I'm sure President Bush is really courageous, if by courageous you mean avoiding actual and dangerous military service when he was a young man. And I'm sure he has great moral strength, if by moral strength you mean sending thousands of young men and women to die for one of the biggest lies in American history. Oh wait I forgot, only Democrats lie because Republicans have never lied before and never will. And yes I'm sure he is a man of great wisdom, if by wisdom you mean having a C average in college and being little more than a puppet for the Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld War Machine. I'm sure he is a great man who is just a victim of a savage press that is so evil because it dares question a Republican president in a time of war.
"Sometimes I think that having George W. Bush as President was God's last gesture of protection."
This statement made me so sick I almost threw up my dinner. I'll be sure to ask God about this when I die and if this is true I will beg him to send me to hell because I want nothing to do with a God that would place this monster, this ignorant coward in the White House. I guess when Bill Clinton became president God was on a break or just pissed off at humanity that day.
"If we're so stupid we can't recognize a good man when we're led by one, if we can't take responsibility for our own defense and the defense of helpless people in other lands"
I guess I am stupid for having a different opinion than you Mr. Card. You sound like a child when you ridicule someone else who dares hold a different opinion. "You're stupid because you're wrong because I'm right and you're wrong."
It must be so easy for you to say how wonderful life is in this country, you in your warm house enjoying your rich holiday parties while there are people who can't afford heating, or food or presents for their children. I'm sure its very warm, cozy and safe where you live, far away from the blood soaked sands of Iraq where I've lost friends and family or watched them come and tell their horrible stories and at the end wonder what it was all for. Yes, these are soldiers I have talked to who dare question our Commander and Chief, but I guess these heroes are just stupid or misguided according to you. Yes, I dare you to walk up to them and tell them they are stupid.
Tell me Mr. Card, is life really so much better now than before George Bush became President? Are we really any safer? Is our economy really so much stronger or are the rich only getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I ask you this because you are obviously very wise and I am just a stupid foolish man who obviously just likes to pick on Geroge Bush for no good reason.
"if we can't take responsibility for our own defense and the defense of helpless people in other lands."
Yes because that is exactly why we sent our soldiers into Iraq, to save the helpless people. Isn't it funny how George Bush continues to spin the wheel of truth. First it was 9/11, then WMDs, then when no connection was found and no weapons found, it was because we wanted to save the helpless Iraqi's. Wow, isn't George Bush such a great man that he cares so much about the Iraqis that he would sacrifice thousands of our own.
Nevermind that there are millions of people starving and dying in Africa from AIDs, Genocide and Civil War. It's funny how George Bush doesn't seem to cry for the people of Rwanda and Darfur, maybe it has something to do with the fact that there's no oil in those places.
There's no profit in saving the innocent. That is the moral law that George Bush lives by.
I can respect a man who holds to his beliefs but I cannot respect someone who can so easily blind himself to the truth and have so much hatred and disdain for anyone who challenges his beliefs. Is this really the kind of country we should be living in? Is this really your utopian vision of the United States of George W. Bush? Where you are either a republican or a democratic because you have to choose a side, you can't dare stop and think for yourself, and follow it blindly whereever it may lead. Except the Republicans are always good, riteous and moral people and democrats are always evil, lying and despicable people.
This is all I have to say and I am sure you will just read this and ignore it. I had to say what I had to say and I hope you can find it in you to respect me for that, not that it means much anymore coming from you. It's funny to think back now to when I read Ender's Game when I was 13 years old and imagined what the author of this book was like. You sir are nothing like I imagined. You sir, are a dissapointment.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Wow. That was just as ranty as Card's essay, if not even more.
Still, the title cracks me up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You have the right, of course, to decide whom you intend to respect. Do you think you'll accomplish anything by telling someone you don't respect him?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unlike most people in this country, I do not blindly follow someone based on what party he is or automatically ignore or attack any opinion from the other party.
Ow. The irony got in my eyes!
quote:To this Mr. Card, I can only say that you must only be watching and listening to Fox News, and ignoring any other news source.
That must be it. It couldn't be that this accusation is your method of automatically ignoring or attacking opinions of someone who supports a different party than you.
quote:I guess I am stupid for having a different opinion than you Mr. Card. You sound like a child when you ridicule someone else who dares hold a different opinion. "You're stupid because you're wrong because I'm right and you're wrong."
He calls you stupid. You call him a child. You're better why, exactly?
quote:It must be so easy for you to say how wonderful life is in this country, you in your warm house enjoying your rich holiday parties while there are people who can't afford heating, or food or presents for their children.
You are apparently ignorant of Card's preferred economic policies.
quote:I can respect a man who holds to his beliefs but I cannot respect someone who can so easily blind himself to the truth and have so much hatred and disdain for anyone who challenges his beliefs.
I suggest you work on regaining your self-respect, then.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Yeah, that last review was a little over the top even by Card's standards.
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Sometimes I think that having George W. Bush as President was God's last gesture of protection. Still, the title cracks me up.
I looked for evidence that this statement was tongue-in-cheek but unfortunately couldn't find any.
I generally enjoy his review articles because his tone is drastically different from the tone in his World Watch articles. It would be nice if he kept his politics out of them.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I just hope none of the Cards DO see this thread, because it's embarrassing and decreases the likelihood of their participation in the forum.
(which I would like to see again)
Is that really only Rat's 3rd post?
OSC's politics aside--he's such a great writer. I just started Pastwatch, and he has such cool ideas and perspectives.
I think we need that guy from cracked (from this thread) to write an article on 10 things Republicans and Democrats can agree on. We really AREN'T all that different, I don't think.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
He is. But I still disagree with 90% of what he has to say. Especially that LINE in the last book in the first Ender series. That's a total myth and completely unhealthy. I don't agree with him about Bush one bit, it seems from other's perspective it just isn't true, and the economy really isn't doing well with the dollar growing weaker and the whole Real Estate crisis to consider. Not to mention the trillion dollar budget deficit. I am not insulting him, I just don't agree.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Sometimes I wonder why Scott doesn’t post here anymore. Then someone like “The Magic Rat” posts and I remember why.
I wonder since he only has three posts, yet seems familiar with the area if he’s got another name on the board.
It’s really a shame we can’t have a positive place to talk about Scot Card.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
To The Magic Rat (or whoever it is who registered the screenname back in May of '06 for the occasions that you want post something you don't have the conviction to post under your regular handle), it must be nice to know you are always right.
Ironic, coming from me, I know.
Edit: For perspective here's a choice quote from on of his other two posts: "And no I don't think Orson Scott Card will ever read this post or actually agree with me because that would mean he was actually thinking outside of his arrogant pompous mind."
I wonder who this is? I wonder if he (or she) has the cojones to admit who he is, rather than hiding behind this back-up screenname.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think that rant as absurd, and have a hard time taking it serious at all.
And God knows I disagree with Card on almost everything other than how to write good fiction.
That being said....Jay, you have hardly been above partisan sniping yourself. You are hardly a beacon of love and light when it comes to politics.
If Card wants to comment on politics...and he isn't shy about calling others out either....then his views are open for discussion. I just prefer to discuss those views without attacking him as a person.
It's a shame others can't seem to understand the difference.
When I bother commenting at all. I usually stay away from the politic here, as those conversations tend to leave bad taste in my mouth lately.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I agree Kwea, I've been consistently perplexed by OSC's attitude toward discussion of his political writing here. It disappoints me that he no longer posts, although it hardly surprises me. I only ever argued with Card about anything because I thought his opinion mattered, and that he should be better informed about things I might know something about. He was extremely defensive with me and my criticism, and took it personally when he should not have, in my mind. Still this rant is extremely personal and hurts the point it tries to support.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And yet for all the wild vitriol in Rat's statement, presumably one of the things that keeps Card away, the majority, in fact every responder in this thread have derided that initial post as wrong, not necessarily in content (stance I guess) but certainly in tone and rudeness.
Near as I can tell, this thread would be a reason for him to come back, because while a lot of people disagree with him about Bush, everyone seems pretty non-confrontational about it. How much fun is it to just talk to people who agree with you?
Posted by Objectivity (Member # 4553) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I agree Kwea, I've been consistently perplexed by OSC's attitude toward discussion of his political writing here. It disappoints me that he no longer posts, although it hardly surprises me. I only ever argued with Card about anything because I thought his opinion mattered, and that he should be better informed about things I might know something about. He was extremely defensive with me and my criticism, and took it personally when he should not have, in my mind. Still this rant is extremely personal and hurts the point it tries to support.
He's always been like that. I remember when he had the forum on Prodigy and Xenocide came out. I made a comment that the book was extremely disappointing because it didn't address any of the major cliffhangers in Speaker for the Dead, something I still believe to be true. I wasn't disrespectful, but I was critical - it was a comment thread about the book (or whatever passed for a comment thread at the time).
Based on his response (imagine Roger Clemens' news conference but more coherent) you would have thought I had insulted some beloved relative.
My only thought in hindsight is that he was frustrated by several other (professional) reviews that said the same thing and chose to take out his frustrations on an anonymous poster on a pre-Internet message board.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hey, someone else who remembers the Prodigy forum! Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I had to say what I had to say and I hope you can find it in you to respect me for that, not that it means much anymore coming from you.
My favorite part. "I hope you can still respect me after I've completely disrespected you in every manner I can think of."
Posted by The Magic Rat (Member # 9401) on :
Wow, so much anger. I thought this was a forum for free discussion. I guess that only applies to people who agree with the majority and Orson Scott Card.
To those people who think that I am hiding behind a screen name and normally post under another name, that is simply untrue. Yes, it is true I have only posted a few times. Does that mean my opinion is worth less than those who post more often?
As I have stated numerous times in my original post, I am not attacking Card for having different opinions from my own, I am simply calling him out for continually ridiculing people who believe differently than him. As I said before, I can respect someone for sticking to his beliefs, but not when it means attacking others. There just seems to be an arrogant tone in a lot of his posts. I don't know if that is intentional or not but it is there and suggests that he considers himself above other people. I hope that's not true, but that's what I feel when reading his articles.
As for the person who posted one my old posts from a while ago, I'm not sure what you're trying to say by doing that. Is this supposed to mean that my opinions mean nothing because I have criticized Orson Scott Card before? As I have stated in that post as well, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Card and am a huge fan of his books.
Forgive me if my posts might keep Orson Scott Card away. I would hope that he is not so sensitive about receiving negative feedback that he would stop posting on this forum. If so, then maybe he should stop writing about his politics if he can't handle someone else disagreeing with him. This is a forum after all.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: That being said....Jay, you have hardly been above partisan sniping yourself. You are hardly a beacon of love and light when it comes to politics.
I might not hold my conservatism in, but I’m a Scott Card supporter no matter what.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wow, so much anger. I thought this was a forum for free discussion. I guess that only applies to people who agree with the majority and Orson Scott Card.
You'll note that your post is still here and your username still has posting rights. Is there some particular reason, other than the fact that people have vigorously discussed your post, that you're claiming that this forum doesn't allow free discussion?
quote:As I have stated numerous times in my original post, I am not attacking Card for having different opinions from my own, I am simply calling him out for continually ridiculing people who believe differently than him.
And you're doing it by engaging in the same tactics you take him to task for. This is inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst.
quote:Is this supposed to mean that my opinions mean nothing because I have criticized Orson Scott Card before?
No. It's supposed to mean that your intentions here are not to actually discuss things, but merely to sound off.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, this is another example of you doing what you accuse Card of doing:
quote:I guess that only applies to people who agree with the majority and Orson Scott Card.
A quick perusal of this site would make it absolutely clear to you that there is ample disagreement with both majority- and minority-held positions and that disagreement with Card is quite common.
Rather than taking the 2 minutes that would be required to discover that, you made inaccurate assumptions about the motives of people who criticized you and their reasons for doing so.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, you've responded to what you considered ridicule with... more ridicule, instead of, say, reasoned arguments. Why should we listen to you or him?
Posted by The Magic Rat (Member # 9401) on :
I honestly don't see how my original post was hypocritical. I was merely calling out Card for showing so much anger and almost hatred towards people who disagree with him. I personally do not consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. I will not necessarily support someone who shares the same beliefs and opinions as me. Instead I would support someone who I feel can do the most for the most people, not a small minority.
I feel that I am discussing issues rather than sounding off as someone suggesting. I suppose if I were writing about something you agree with than you would say that was a discussion. Since I obviously do not share your opinions, you say I am merely sounding off.
When I questioned this being a free forum, I did not suggest that I might be removed from the forum. I question this forum when someone is attacked almost worse than Card attacks other people's beliefs.
In my original post, I stated my opinions on several of Card's statements. I consider that reasoned argument, not ridicule.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, you actually hit most of my opinions, in general. Your delivery, and your personal opinions and characterizations are miles off however, and your style is unlikeable. Sorry, but your not the vocal minority, you're just vocal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I honestly don't see how my original post was hypocritical.
...
In my original post, I stated my opinions on several of Card's statements. I consider that reasoned argument, not ridicule.
You took issue with Card showing anger and almost hatred at people who disagree with him. TO do so, you said the following:
quote:*Unlike most people in this country, I do not blindly follow someone based on what party he is or automatically ignore or attack any opinion from the other party.
*To this Mr. Card, I can only say that you must only be watching and listening to Fox News, and ignoring any other news source.
*this ignorant coward in the White House.
*It must be so easy for you to say how wonderful life is in this country, you in your warm house enjoying your rich holiday parties while there are people who can't afford heating, or food or presents for their children.
*I hope you can find it in you to respect me for that, not that it means much anymore coming from you.
Do you really not see the ridicule in your post? Do you really not see that, in your constant assumptions about why Card thinks what he does, you are engaging in exactly the same tactics you complain about him using?
quote:I suppose if I were writing about something you agree with than you would say that was a discussion.
Another example of you making stuff up about other people. Is it impossible for you to comprehend that people might think what you are doing is not discussion even if they agreed with you?
You've stated that the only reason people have for taking exception to your post is that they disagree with your content. You have no basis for this, you've been called on it at least once, and you're still doing it.
For your information, several people who regularly criticize Card's reviews and essays have also criticized your posts. You can keep saying "You're being mean because you disagree with me" all you like; it won't make it true.
quote:I question this forum when someone is attacked almost worse than Card attacks other people's beliefs.
You mean how you attacked others - not just Card - in your opening and additional posts?
Posted by The Magic Rat (Member # 9401) on :
I'm sorry if you are sensitive to my posts. Is it hard for you to think that any anger I might unintentionally show in my posts could come from the fact that I have witnessed friends and family suffer under some of George Bush's policies. This is one of the reasons I have chosen to call out Card.
It's interesting how you have no objection to what Card has written. I am simply responding to his post in kind. When someone slaps me in the face with his politics and his anger towards other people, am I supposed to smile and pick my words carefully so as not to hurt his feelings? Maybe Card should have thought about that in his article. All I ask is people to consider other viewpoints and beliefs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is it hard for you to think that any anger I might unintentionally show in my posts could come from the fact that I have witnessed friends and family suffer under some of George Bush's policies.
So if there's a good enough reason for anger (and I don't believe for a second you're showing it unintentionally), then we ought to excuse that anger? If that's so, have you bothered to attempt to understand the reason for Card's anger?
quote:It's interesting how you have no objection to what Card has written.
You have no way of knowing if this is true or not. This is the third time you've made unwarranted assumptions about what others' believe - the second time you've done it after it's been explicitly pointed out that you are doing it.
quote:When someone slaps me in the face with his politics and his anger towards other people, am I supposed to smile and pick my words carefully so as not to hurt his feelings?
If your contention is that people ought not to do something, then don't be surprised when you are criticized for doing that something. If it is your contention that one ought not slap others in the face with their politics, you ought not to do that either.
quote:All I ask is people to consider other viewpoints and beliefs.
And you have NO indication that people here aren't doing that. Instead, you're using your bald claim that they are not considering other viewpoints and beliefs to dismiss others' criticism of your posts.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
One of many, many examples:
"Oh wait I forgot, only Democrats lie because Republicans have never lied before and never will."
At no point has OSC ever said that. This is exactly the sort of overexaggeration you attack Card for. Can you see why, frankly, I find that funny?
Are you capable of doing what you claim OSC cannot? Can you express an opinion without making it an attack? If you can, you'll find plenty of people here happy to discuss OSC's columns.
Posted by The Magic Rat (Member # 9401) on :
Actually Card did suggest that Republicans are always victims of a vicious media. He states how the media attacks Republican presidents so if that is the case then he is saying that Republicans have always made good presidents, they just aren't portrayed that way in the media.
Someone will probably say this is me attacking people again but I think that maybe some people here are just way too sensitive. I think that my original post is rather tame compared to some other articles and posts I have read.
And to you Dagonee, so far in our little "discussion" you have not addressed Card's article and the issues with it that I have raised. If you define what I am doing as attacking people, then you yourself are guilty of doing the same thing to me. You continue to criticize me yet you do not criticize Orson Scott Card.
I do not feel that I am making bald claims because unfortunately there are a lot of people who do not consider other viewpoints.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think that my original post is rather tame compared to some other articles and posts I have read.
Please do not judge the quality of your contributions based on the quality of discussion common on the Internet. That's a very low bar, and we try to do better.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
There is no way to say this without instantly being labeled as a fox-news-loving, blinders-wearing, OSC kissing, rich-living, blind mental midget, but you Mr. Rat are seeing only what you want to see.
Plenty of people documented your fallacies and you dismiss them but will not hold OSC to that same slippery standard--you hold him to a much higher standard of criticism.
So, "he started it," but in his mind, he may think "you" (meaning people that you more closely identify with) have attacked "him" (meaning people that he more closely identifies with) first, and he is only slapping back. Or, sometimes the best response to one who starts it is to be civil and fair-minded.
This, of course, would require a fair analysis which so far appears to be lacking on your part. This is understandable--we all get partisan from time to time and let our biases take over. (go ahead, say I am doing that now--doesn't change the point, I believe)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do not feel that I am making bald claims because unfortunately there are a lot of people who do not consider other viewpoints.
But you are asserting that the reason your posts are being criticized is that the people doing the criticizing do not consider other viewpoints. You're not making a general observation - you're making specific accusations.
quote:And to you Dagonee, so far in our little "discussion" you have not addressed Card's article and the issues with it that I have raised.
No, I haven't addressed the issue you've raised about Card's articles. I have, however, addressed your posts, specifically the repeated misstatements about others' motivations for disagreeing with you.
quote:If you define what I am doing as attacking people, then you yourself are guilty of doing the same thing to me. You continue to criticize me yet you do not criticize Orson Scott Card.
No, we are doing different things. I'm addressing what you're actually saying. I am not casually dismissing what you are saying by assigning motives to you.
Posted by Dark as night (Member # 9577) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Magic Rat:
Forgive me if my posts might keep Orson Scott Card away. I would hope that he is not so sensitive about receiving negative feedback that he would stop posting on this forum. If so, then maybe he should stop writing about his politics if he can't handle someone else disagreeing with him. This is a forum after all.
It is a forum. On HIS website. And in my opinion it is bad manners to insult someone as you have on their own website.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Someone will probably say this is me attacking people again but I think that maybe some people here are just way too sensitive. I think that my original post is rather tame compared to some other articles and posts I have read.
You're. Still. Missing. The. Point.
When you complain about someone for their contempt and ridicule, and you do so using contempt and ridicule, it doesn't matter what your points might be or what the actual facts are. The hypocrisy (and irony) just rises up like floodwaters and swamps everything else.
I'm not coming down on you because you disagree with OSC. I disagree with just about every political column he's written in the last five years. But I and others here have managed to do so by addressing the issues and offering competing views. Often we'll take those issues and argue them ourselves, using his points as a springboard.
Yes, he can get strident and contemptuous. Doesn't mean we have to, and it doesn't mean we have to pay attention to someone trying to be even more contemptuous to get himself heard.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Magic Rat: Actually Card did suggest that Republicans are always victims of a vicious media. He states how the media attacks Republican presidents so if that is the case then he is saying that Republicans have always made good presidents, they just aren't portrayed that way in the media.
I don't think this guy knows what he's getting into. This forum is not for the weak of heart, or the weak-minded. Am I the only one here who recognizes the incredibly fallacious conclusion being drawn here? You're gonna have to do a lot better than that, Rat.
quote: And to you Dagonee, so far in our little "discussion" you have not addressed Card's article and the issues with it that I have raised. If you define what I am doing as attacking people, then you yourself are guilty of doing the same thing to me. You continue to criticize me yet you do not criticize Orson Scott Card.
Good job, you did it again. Here's a tip: anytime you make an if/then statement, make sure the "if" implies the "then."
If you had said anything that was worth a discussion, then I guarantee a discussion would have happened. Instead the only issue at hand on this particular thread is how bone-headed you are, not to mention arrogant (yes, I know, I am in fact mentioning it). If you think you can just waltz in here with three posts to your name and expect special treatment, you are sorely mistaken. Trust me on this, because I'm still paying my dues. But the return on my investment has been worth it.
If you plan on sticking around, you'll need a sharper mind, and a little tact goes a long way. If you don't have it now, you'll get it eventually. I know I did. And Tom is absolutely correct; we hold ourselves to a much higher standard here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The Magic Rat:
quote:Forgive me if my posts might keep Orson Scott Card away. I would hope that he is not so sensitive about receiving negative feedback that he would stop posting on this forum. If so, then maybe he should stop writing about his politics if he can't handle someone else disagreeing with him. This is a forum after all.
quote:I'm sorry if you are sensitive to my posts. Is it hard for you to think that any anger I might unintentionally show in my posts could come from the fact that I have witnessed friends and family suffer under some of George Bush's policies.
Here's a novel idea, try sincerity when you apologize in your posts. You apologize like a child with the, "I'm sorry your so sensitive!" That's not sincerity, that's sounding like your apologizing when in reality your just insulting the other person again.
Instead of coming in here all blustery and angry, and then indignant when people don't just pipe up with an, "AMEN!" try seeing why you are being unilaterally rebuked. I promise you it has nothing to do with a vast Card wing conspiracy.
People are not interested in discussing their disagreements with Orson Scott Card until YOU learn to not be so irritable in how you portray your ideas. If you have to saturate your opinions so that they drip with emotion nobody is going to want to discuss things with you here.
I'm sure it's maddening to be angry with Orson Scott Card, vent on a forum and then instead of getting the satisfaction of a mob taking your ball and running with it, you yourself are critiqued. I get that, I really do.
But ordinary people can get angry, call people names, assume the opposition are idiots, insist disagreeing posts have spurious motives, and be unapologetic. It takes something else entirely to be stopped in their tracks, and to take it with a smile.
You are welcome to reconsider how you post here in the future and be a useful contributor in the future or you can leave here convinced we weren't worth your time anyway.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I'll address one of the points in the OP.
Why is fighting for Oil so bad? In my opinion, that's a better motive than civil rights of a people who don't care if we care. Actually, I find it commendable that he waged a practical war and managed to whittle down the number of anti-American terrorists in the same campaign.
Think of it like this: The American government has probably had it's eyes on Iraqi oil for a long long time. Until Bush, we've been patiently waiting for a reason to make a go for it. By reason, I mean something to front to the American people (and our allies) so that we don't look like the selfish opportunistic country that we are.
This next part may sound like a crazy conspiracy theory, but this conclusion was reached through a logical train of thought that is probably far less deep than that of the people making decisions in the government. That part is that I don't think Bush really has anything to do with it. In fact, it would make perfect sense to believe that he's being used. What better way to keep troops involved in an unpopular war than to hold up the supposed guy in charge and have him repeat himself till he's blue in the face? The American people are shouting from the rooftops: "Bring our troops home!" "Nobody wants this war!" "Why don't you listen to the American people?!". When these fall on deaf ears and Bush just goes up and says the same thing again, the people say "Oh, what did we expect, he's an idiot, just look at the way he messes up half the stuff he says." That public opinion what's buying us more time to get a firmer hold on the oil that will maintain our lifestyles, our industry, and our economy.
I think the button-pushers in the government WANTED a president that looks like an idiot, because if the people thought he was smart, they would be looking a hell of a lot harder at why he doesn't stop this unpopular war.
I commend Bush for being a hell of an actor (or maybe just an idiot in the right place at the right time; you know, plausible deny ability and whatnot).
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Oh, and before the storm of criticism about losing friends and family, I ask you this. For what cause would you NOT be bitter about losing said friends and family? What war could they possibly be involved in that you would consider their sacrifice "Worth it"?
Seeing as how the draft is not in effect, then they must have CHOSEN to get involved in the military and chosen to trust that the government was sending them for a worthwhile objective, whatever that may be. Is it so much to ask for you to trust their decision to trust the government's motives?
I'm not saying not to mourn your loss. I'm saying to think before you accuse someone of causing that loss. Bush didn't cause your loss, and so "Card supports the man that killed my friends and family" is not a justifiable reason to attack him.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think I will continue to very politely disagree with a good deal of OSC's statements. He's a contributing factor to driving me up a tree. I do not think it is logical to state that because we disagree with the war that it automatically means we want the enemy to win. Things are not so simple. Everything is a lot more complex then it is presented, and if we are not allowed to disagree it opens the doors for potential abuse. People will be allowed to take power with no one to contradict them, even if they are in the right, and that is a dangerous premise. Plus I do not believe in the concept of America hating intellectual elites. From the historical perspective of various groups of people, so-called tradition American values have NOT been a good thing.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Plus I do not believe in the concept of America hating intellectual elites. From the historical perspective of various groups of people, so-called tradition American values have NOT been a good thing.
Is that "America hates intellectual elites" or "America-hating" (as in the intellectual elites hate America)? I'll assume the latter, which seems to more appropriately address Orson Scott Card's opinions, in this post.
I have experience with the kind of "intellectual elites" that Card "rants" about frequently. In fact, they make up my neighborhood. The family of my best friend is so fanatically left-wing that they threatened to disown my best friend (somewhat jokingly, but with an air of threatening tone, and I've seen a more slippery attitude between them since) when he said "I think Hillary Clinton should not be President."
There's this other person I know who hates Bush so much that she "think[s] democracy doesn't work anymore because it has proven that it can't get Al Gore elected." She also laughed and thought I was retarded when I told her that I tended to lean a bit to the conservative side of politics when thinking idealistically, but to her, global warming is the apocalypse and she is the annoying street preacher who screams at everyone that the end times are coming.
In school, nobody bothers to say the pledge of Allegiance, and when I asked a couple of them why, they say "Because as long as Bush is in office, America sucks."
Others go so far as to use Bush as the butt of their obscene jokes the same way third-graders use Barney the Dinosaur.
My neighborhood, because it is rather affluent and near some famous public schools, is generally very left-wing and, since we're all cooped up together, the general mentality is either hatred towards Republicans, hatred towards politics because of what Republicans are doing, or in some instances hatred of politics because the local Democrats are being such jerks about people they don't even know.
People where I come from can't understand those who volunteer to join the military, puff their chests and either laugh or smile smugly at anyone who confesses the sin of not being a Democrat, and some of the younger ones distantly hope that a Communist revolution would overthrow the American government because China's doing so much better than us.
None of this is being done in seriousness; we're still friends beneath it all, but it is still done casually, which shows that they do think that, but are not willing to act on it.
This is the kind of population I think Orson Scott Card is thinking about, not the average liberal or critical thinker that expresses skepticism of Republican policy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have experience with the kind of "intellectual elites" that Card "rants" about frequently. In fact, they make up my neighborhood. The family of my best friend is so fanatically left-wing that they threatened to disown my best friend (somewhat jokingly, but with an air of threatening tone, and I've seen a more slippery attitude between them since) when he said "I think Hillary Clinton should not be President."
There's this other person I know who hates Bush so much that she "think[s] democracy doesn't work anymore because it has proven that it can't get Al Gore elected." She also laughed and thought I was retarded when I told her that I tended to lean a bit to the conservative side of politics when thinking idealistically, but to her, global warming is the apocalypse and she is the annoying street preacher who screams at everyone that the end times are coming.
Okay. So they're obnoxiously partisan. Can you demonstrate that they hate America? Hating Republican policies does not constitute a dislike for one's country.
Posted by The Magic Rat (Member # 9401) on :
sylvrdragon you asked why is fighting for oil so bad? Do you think it is worth thousands of American lives and even more Iraqi lives so you can pay a few cents less at the gas station? Also, how has this war whittled down the number of anti-American terrorists, when this war has only fueled even more hatred towards the U.S. not just in the middle east but throughout the world.
Also, in your second post, sylvrdragon you seem to argue that my friends, family members and every other soldier should have known what they were getting into when they enlisted and should not complain about their government or feel bitter. You are right, they did trust their government, TO DO THE RIGHT THING, to only engage in war as an absolute last resort. Is it so wrong to criticize a government and a president who betrayed the trust of so many people?
Also, perhaps you should consider the fact that many people who enlist do so because they have no other choice. They are from poor families or neighborhoods and are persuaded by recruiters to join the military and it will pay for their college education. The only catch is you have to survive a tour of duty in Iraq first, except that year turns into several years and suddenly you've been in Iraq for four or five years and you're 24 years old and still haven't set foot in a college classroom even though you've done your service several times over.
Yes, there is a cause that I would not feel so better about losing friends and family too, a cause that I would gladly sacrifice my own life for and that is in the defense of this country and others around the world who deserve it the most. There are just causes for war, but only as a last resort and these causes do not include oil, power or money.
I can't help but shake my head and laugh again at Cards most recent article where he again commends President Bush for finally having the "right" commanders in Iraq. Yes, good job Mr. President, for finally doing something right after almost five years of doing just about everything wrong. That's like saying a student is a genius for getting a C on a test after failing the first ten. I think Mr. Card is setting the bar way to low for our current president.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I enlisted in the Army in January 2001 because my options were so bad. This was pre-9/11, mind you, and I just thought I was going to find some stability in my life; that I was getting away from my dysfunctional family and druggie friends. I was 19.
I was sent to Iraq in March of 2003 and spent a year there. I had no idea what the big picture was. But when I got back, I decided to find out what I had just spent the past year of my life doing. All I heard about from the media was that we were there for a lie, that we were fighting a puny little chimp's war. Let me tell you, I got bitter. I mean, I watched this guy steal the election from Gore!
I can't describe the relief I felt when I finally saw Bill O'Reilly. I watched him with so much disdain, because everyone knew how much of a partisan shill for the Bush Administration he was. But it just so nice to actually hear that someone out there didn't think this was all a waste of time, and that the people running our government weren't simultaneously evil geniuses and illiterate rednecks. He had Ann Coulter on, and so I picked up one of her books. It was Slander, which is a scholarly book that explains exactly how I had been lied to my whole life. I immediately read her next book, Treason, which is a scholarly book about how the leftist in our government have been steadily working toward our destruction, with varying degrees of good intentions and awareness of what they have been doing (she tends to de-emphasize those parts.) Well, the rest is history.
My point, Rat, is... what is my point? I'll just make one up now. My point is that you don't speak for the soldiers. You speak for yourself, and you and many others would do well to remember that. You say those things as if they were in the spirit of sympathy for the way we were and are being used for some political end, but I guarantee that if you ask any random soldier who has put his life on the line for this cause, odds are he will consider it a noble cause. So do me a favor, and don't trivialize what me and my brothers have done and continue to do just to serve your ideological purposes.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I picked up an Ann Coulter book in a used bookstore once and it was horribly written. While I'm obviously a little biased, I can name plenty of books that I disagree with but that are well written. Ann Coulter is not scholarly.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
All soldiers are different.
And there's no way I'd take Ann Coulter seriously. She's too mean! There's absolutely no reason to be mean about disagreeing with people. Name calling, insisting that everyone who doesn't agree with you sucks. I don't see the sense of that. It's not polite. She's not logical enough. The world is so much more complex than either conservatives or liberals make it out to be.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Just so you guys know, when I say scholarly, I mean that every statement of fact that she makes in those books are sourced. It's her abrasive style that makes her who she is (and sells so many books.) But her books are not horribly written, like you believe Threads. If you disagree with her, that's one thing. But to the choir (to whom she preaches), she's a brilliant writer.
Yes, Syn, she does not have much use for gray areas, even where they most certainly exist. For me at the time, she was just speaking something diametrically opposed to everything I had ever heard before, and this was extremely refreshing. Put please don't ask me to defend her wholeheartedly, because I am not about to do that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My point is that you don't speak for the soldiers.
Neither do you, of course. And I'm not sure that setting out to find sources that prove that your time in Iraq was meaningful is really the best way to decide -- in an unbiased way -- whether your time in Iraq was meaningful. It sounds like you hoped for a certain conclusion and cherry-picked writers who would help you reach it.
quote:when I say scholarly, I mean that every statement of fact that she makes in those books are sourced.
To some extent. If you do a quick Google, you'll find a number of criticisms of Coulter's "sources," especially her very questionable (and extensive) use of Lexis. That said, I understand that you're not mounting a passionate defense of her; I do want you to understand, though, that the inclusion of "citations" does not necessarily make any work more accurate.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Ok, I'm going to be really REALLY mean here now....
After reading this whole thread, I just get this picture of Rat boy....
The 9-year-old kid who is always doing SOMETHING wrong just so he can get the teachers attention. He's sitting their laughing at us because we think we might actually get somewhere by lecturing him, but in reality, we're giving him just what he wants by even noticing what he's doing.
I know I'm probably wrong, but that just goes to show how little you can understand of the reality by just reading dead words on a screen.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: I'll address one of the points in the OP.
Why is fighting for Oil so bad? In my opinion, that's a better motive than civil rights of a people who don't care if we care. Actually, I find it commendable that he waged a practical war and managed to whittle down the number of anti-American terrorists in the same campaign.
Eh, dumb for two reasons that I can see there. 1. We still don't have control of the oil, and even if we did, their production is not to pre-war levels.
But here's the real kicker 2. This thing will have cost, in purely monetary measures, well over a trillion dollars, probably closer to two trillion when you really factor in ALL that costs. All for oil? Ridiculous. For that kind of money we could have built an all new energy T&D system, could have created a renewable energy infrastructure, and hell probably could have bought a PHEV for every household in the country. You think spending two trillion is a good thing to do just to keep the status quo, HOPEFULLY?
Riiiiiiiiidiculous. Now factor in all the things that don't cost money per se, like the deaths, and political fallout. That's window dressing on top of an already ridiculous premise, now it just seems outright catastrophic.
Oh, and point number three I'll just toss on there. I don't believe for a second that we've whittled down the number of terrorists who hate us. I think we created so many new ones with this war, that any we kill will probably still keep us above the number we started with.
Posted by GodSpoken (Member # 9358) on :
Very interesting how the tone of MR's post is taken as inflammatory, when many of the discussions here - especially those on religion - frequently become passionate and at times downright childish.
I think his sentiments and the emotional conviction he expresses are shared by a large number of Americans at the moment. Not liking it spoken aloud doesn't minimize its importance.
Perhaps OSC will take the comments badly, but it doesn't seem likely judging from the way he writes vigorous dialog and arguments. But as many point out, characters are only that and don't represent the author.
I dunno, he can likely speak for himself if so moved.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Of course I don't claim to speak for the soldiers, Tom. To do so would completely undermine my point. So I have to wonder, what exactly was the purpose of that statement?
And was I cherry picking? Or was I just attracted to a completely different point of view that I very nearly didn't even recognize as even existing? I recognize that an ideology that didn't make me feel like a tool looked a lot better to me than everything I had known previously, regardless of its veracity. But I still don't understand what you're trying to accomplish with your post, and quite frankly I think you should've just kept those thoughts to yourself.
Her use of citations was most likely a defensive measure. People read her books for her opinions, and the way she expresses them. It's a guilty pleasure, but what makes it pleasurable is that you know she's not just talking out of her culo. She is definitely someone who cherry-picks her information, but no one in politics is going to tell you the whole story.
As for her use of Lexus-Nexus, in nearly all cases it was to serve as an example of the media coverage of particular events. I mean, when a LexusNexus search turns up dozens of front-page stories about Abu Ghraib in the New York Times alone, well, that's an effective use of the utility.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I see this as a debate between ethics and logistics. To answer MR: Yes, I think it is worth thousands of lives to fight for oil. However, you must realize that "oil" is much more than just gasoline for your car. This war isn't over just a few cents a gallon, it's over our entire style of life. Keep in mind that everything you see made of plastic, and I think rubber, is a petroleum product. That's a lot of stuff that I wouldn't want to do without.
To address Lyr's second point, I think that those "few cents a gallon" spread over the entire nation will far more than make up for (possibly in a matter of weeks) the money we've spent on this war thus far. To the first point, all I have to say is: Yet. The war isn't over. In fact, I'm off the opinion that the worst thing that could happen with this war is that the American people force us to pull out prematurely before we CAN secure the oil, or at least set up a government with which we can get the best possible deal on it (More likely in my opinion. The moral majority might not like it if we just commandeered it).
I think Resh addressed the 'Soldiers' branch of discussion better than I could have. Whether he represents the majority or not, I can't say. I won't pretend to read minds. Same principle goes for the 'Number of Terrorists' branch. This is all philosophy unless someone can come up with real statistics.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:what makes it pleasurable is that you know she's not just talking out of her culo.
No, see, that's the problem. The citations are used to make it seem like that's the case -- but take a closer look at those citations again, and you'll see that they don't actually imply any real intellectual rigor. She really is just spouting off; many of her citations are completely unrelated to the claim she's making, and/or clearly misinterpreted/distorted references to a work taken out of context. There are, as I've said, fairly comprehensive discussions of her citations online; look 'em up.
As to keeping my opinions to myself: hey, if you don't want my opinions on your anecdotes, keep your personal anecdotes to yourself. When you say that Coulter (et al) showed you another way to look at your service in a positive light at a time when you were questioning that service, what I hear is that you underwent the political version of a religious conversion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Also, please don't use Italian swear words.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I can't help but shake my head and laugh again at Cards most recent article where he again commends President Bush for finally having the "right" commanders in Iraq. Yes, good job Mr. President, for finally doing something right after almost five years of doing just about everything wrong. That's like saying a student is a genius for getting a C on a test after failing the first ten. I think Mr. Card is setting the bar way to low for our current president.
Funny thing is there is extensive documentation available to help determine a students grade where all you have to go on are the talking heads on TV and the speculation of magazines you may or may not be reading.
You and everyone else knows relatively little about ALL the decisions Bush has or has not made. Usually a presidency can't be fairly accessed until several years later when former cabinet members, aides, etc can start talking, and documents become declassified.
Unless you are under the illusion that the news pays close attention to EVERY decision Bush has ever made.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Also, please don't use Italian swear words.
Isn't that Spanish? Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's Italian, definitely.
It may also be Spanish.
Either way, I'd rather not see it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: In fact, I'm off the opinion that the worst thing that could happen with this war is that the American people force us to pull out prematurely before we CAN secure the oil...
Stepping outside of the politics for a second. The worst thing that could happen? Seriously, you think thats the worst case scenario?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But here's the real kicker 2. This thing will have cost, in purely monetary measures, well over a trillion dollars, probably closer to two trillion when you really factor in ALL that costs. All for oil? Ridiculous. For that kind of money we could have built an all new energy T&D system, could have created a renewable energy infrastructure, and hell probably could have bought a PHEV for every household in the country. You think spending two trillion is a good thing to do just to keep the status quo, HOPEFULLY?
It is pretty smart if your personal fortune is connected to the oil business and the money you are spending isn't coming out of your corporate pockets.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
One of the funniest moments on my mission is when I was holding the two-year-old girl in one arm, and her doll in the other and she kept pointing to her doll's bottom saying, "culo, culo". It was quite cute. I started to tell her that "culo" was a "parolaccia", but her father corrected me that "culo" was only a "parolaccia" when used in the context of "va fare culo". So in the context of TomD's comments, "culo" is a perfectly acceptable substitution for "butt".
Posted by The Magic Rat (Member # 9401) on :
Resh, let me make this clear, I have nothing but respect and admiration for you and any man or woman who serves in our military. I am not trivializing anyone's service or sacrifice for our country. I am however criticizing President Bush for using our soldiers for an unworthy cause. I am not hoping for failure in Iraq as some people suggest about me or others who criticize the war.
One of the issues here is that a lot of people who criticize the war are considered unpatriotic or not supporting our troops. Even President Bush and his supporters have said this about opponents of the war and I think that is an unfair accusation.
Also, sylvrdragon, I still can't understand your belief that it is right to sacrifice blood for oil. I'm sorry, I don't recall us being in an oil crisis leading up to the Iraq War. Would we have run out of oil and our government crumbled into chaos if we didn't invade Iraq?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's Spanish too. I'd never heard that it was Italian. I hear that word day in and day out at work.
quote:Originally Posted by sylvrdragon: I see this as a debate between ethics and logistics. To answer MR: Yes, I think it is worth thousands of lives to fight for oil. However, you must realize that "oil" is much more than just gasoline for your car. This war isn't over just a few cents a gallon, it's over our entire style of life. Keep in mind that everything you see made of plastic, and I think rubber, is a petroleum product. That's a lot of stuff that I wouldn't want to do without.
To address Lyr's second point, I think that those "few cents a gallon" spread over the entire nation will far more than make up for (possibly in a matter of weeks) the money we've spent on this war thus far. To the first point, all I have to say is: Yet. The war isn't over. In fact, I'm off the opinion that the worst thing that could happen with this war is that the American people force us to pull out prematurely before we CAN secure the oil, or at least set up a government with which we can get the best possible deal on it (More likely in my opinion. The moral majority might not like it if we just commandeered it).
Seriously? I mean, you seriously believe that? First off, petroleum isn't necessary for the type of products you're listing. Well, right now it's the most used source, but plant based foam and plastics are doable, they just weren't economically viable in the past. Now that oil is over $100 a barrel they're looking downright cheap. Ford is licensing their plant based foam technology to several companies, notably John Deere. They have the added bonus of being biodegradeable, which oil based foam and plastics are NOT. That's another thing that two trillion dollars could have been spent on, research and tax breaks for this research.
And come on, you think a few cents a gallon (I don't know what you were quoting there, but okay) would have been paid for in a few WEEKS? That's the US budget for a YEAR. You're talking about making gas a little cheaper for a little while, I'm talking about getting rid our need for gas ENTIRELY. You want to waste $2 trillion dollars and 3,000 lives for a COUPLE CENTS A GALLON? That's not just stupid, it's callous and a bunch of others things too, none of them smart.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I thought so too. I was hoping it was a joke.
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
quote: ...it is an election year with a Republican incumbent.
If Bush can't run again, how can he be an incumbent? Or did they add a bit to the constitution to allow third terms while i slept? Posted by The Magic Rat (Member # 9401) on :
Actually, it is still appropriate to use incumbent even though of course Bush can't run for President again. Incumbent refers to someone who currently holds office, not just someone who is also running for reelection.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, it's still relevent. Especially with an unpopular Republican incumbent, it's very important when talking about Democratic turnout at the polls.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
According to this site http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm (which I found after about 20 seconds of googling) the US consumes roughly 400 million gallons of gasoline a day. (if you want more sources than that, then click on THEIR sources)
I'll admit that a few weeks is a gross miscalculation of how long it would take to make up 2 trillion dollars (where did you get that number anyway?). I hadn't done the math when I was typing that. It would actually take several years depending on just how far the prices fell. To my credit though, "couple cents a gallon" is an exaggeration as well. I remember gas being about $1.50 less than it is now about 3 years ago. According to Wikipedia (google "past oil prices"),in September of 2003, a barrel of oil was 1/4 the price that it is now.
Oh, and the "few cents a gallon" quote came from MR's response to my initial posts.
As for alternatives to plastic, I won't pretend to be on the cutting edge of technology, but I would guess that if they're not already widespread throughout the country, then they probably aren't as good (for whatever reason) as petroleum products.
But none of that stuff matters. People are missing the POINT of my post. It isn't about Oil or the value of human lives. I'm trying to say that the government most likely has a very good reason to be in Iraq, and the American people probably don't know even a fraction of that reason. I'm sure they have teams of analysts and advisers and a ton of number crunchers telling them what actions will be worth it and what won't. And Bush probably doesn't have anything to do with it.
Speaking of worth, don't ask me if X number of lives are worth something... you don't want to know my value of a human life, not while their are ~7 billion people in this world. Knock a few zeros off of that and we might have a discussion.
@Mucus: I think it's the worst probable scenario directly connected with this war. The things that I think you are thinking about could happen whether we went to Iraq or not (I'm looking at Iran).
Posted by The Magic Rat (Member # 9401) on :
Yes I would like to know your value of a human life sylvrdragon. Of course what is 3,000 lives compared to the billions of people we have in the world? I guess they are worth less. "Knock a few zeros off of that and we might have a discussion." That is a very cold statement to make. I believe that every single life is precious and should not be wasted for an unworthy cause such as oil.
You sure have a lot of faith and trust in our government's reasons for invading Iraq, especially since their stories keep changing month after month and year after year. If their reasons are so legitimate and honorable, why can't they simply be open with us and maybe then that might have more support for the war. Instead we have perhaps the most secretive Presidency in our nation's history. Why be so secretive unless they are hiding some truly terrible truths.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
That oil is in a region that is in danger of being brought under complete control by fascists who would use that oil to hold the rest of the world hostage. So it is somewhat simplistic to say that a single life should not be wasted on a cause as unworthy as oil, because it is more than that. The fate of human civilization is possibly at stake here.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dude, over 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives. I don't think it's worth it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd much rather see oil rendered unnecessary. Think what would happen to the those fascists if the world suddenly didn't need oil? Much more effective than bombing.
Why we're not throwing as much money as possible at alternate energies is beyond me.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I can count the number of people who's deaths I would REALLY care about on my 2 hands, and have several fingers to spare. Outside of these few, nobody else really effects me. Even with the aforementioned people, I would get on with my life after a relatively short period of mourning.
I would wager that humanity could suffer billions of deaths without affecting me (assuming my own isn't one of them). THAT is the point at which I start paying attention. Father even than THAT is the point at which loss of lives starts affecting me NEGATIVELY (overall). That's when I actually start CARING.
Nothing is going to change if I start crying for every lost life that I hear or read about or even see with my own eyes.
I wouldn't use the words Faith or Trust to describe my feelings toward our government. This is all just speculation. I think Curious Apathy hits closer to the mark. I just find it very hard to believe that things are as they appear on the surface. It's all logic. I think it's more than reasonable to believe that the governments decisions are generally made based on a huge amount of information that the general public doesn't necessarily have access to. This is where the Apathy comes in. If this reasoning is correct, then it doesn't MATTER what I think or do (unless I become one of the decision makers, fat chance), and so I don't let it bother me.
I could be wrong though. Maybe dubya IS really in charge. Maybe he's making all of this up as he goes along just like it looks like on TV. But what are the chances that a country that works like that could be as successful as the US?
To MR: Yes, I'm cold, and that chill starts on the fringes and runs most of the way to the center, only warming up as it approaches the small community of my intermediate friends/family and the people that I come into contact with daily. You might be happy to know that on THAT level, I'm pretty normal. Actually, I often surprise myself with how well I relate sometimes to my friends' problems. It's like my empathy is a very narrow beam, but very strong when aimed somewhere.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You cannot be curious and apathetic at the same time.
Trust me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I'll admit that a few weeks is a gross miscalculation of how long it would take to make up 2 trillion dollars (where did you get that number anyway?).
General knowledge. Last I checked the US operating budget was I think $2.1 trillion.
quote:To my credit though, "couple cents a gallon" is an exaggeration as well. I remember gas being about $1.50 less than it is now about 3 years ago. According to Wikipedia (google "past oil prices"),in September of 2003, a barrel of oil was 1/4 the price that it is now.
Doesn't that make it all the more ridiculous then? Gas costs twice what it did just a few years ago, and you suggest wasting a couple trillion on a modest decrease in the price over the next couple years? Oil will cost nearly $4 a gallon in the next couple years, barring unforseen circumstances. We'd have to find a couple of Saudi Arabia's in the middle of Okalahoma to bring that price back down to something we're familiar with in the past. The point is, oil is a fuel of the past, we should be investing to move beyond it, or the 20th century is going to bury us.
quote:As for alternatives to plastic, I won't pretend to be on the cutting edge of technology, but I would guess that if they're not already widespread throughout the country, then they probably aren't as good (for whatever reason) as petroleum products.
You're right, you aren't on the cutting edge (no offense). It isn't an alternative to plastic, it IS plastic. It's just as good. The only reason it wasn't chosen in the 20's as the way to make plastic was becuase oil was much more abundant and extremely cheap back then. That's no longer the case. Is it prevelent right now? Of course not, that's why you invest! You want us to keep digging ourselves into a deeper hole. It's incredibly short sighted.
quote:But none of that stuff matters. People are missing the POINT of my post. It isn't about Oil or the value of human lives. I'm trying to say that the government most likely has a very good reason to be in Iraq, and the American people probably don't know even a fraction of that reason. I'm sure they have teams of analysts and advisers and a ton of number crunchers telling them what actions will be worth it and what won't. And Bush probably doesn't have anything to do with it.
Wow, that's...well that's an amazing amount of SOMETHING. The government most likely has a very good reason? What in the name of all that is holy leads you to believe that? If anything, I think the government has proven they don't have a clue about much of ANYTHING in the Middle East. You have way, WAY too much faith in a government that continues to fail us on a daily basis. Quit drinking the kool-aid.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You cannot be curious and apathetic at the same time.
Trust me.
Oh really??? Eh, well, whatever.
-Bok
Posted by The Magic Rat (Member # 9401) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: I can count the number of people who's deaths I would REALLY care about on my 2 hands, and have several fingers to spare. Outside of these few, nobody else really effects me. Even with the aforementioned people, I would get on with my life after a relatively short period of mourning.
I would wager that humanity could suffer billions of deaths without affecting me
Nothing is going to change if I start crying for every lost life that I hear or read about or even see with my own eyes.
You're right, probably nothing is going to change if you start crying for every lost life, but it wouldn't hurt to show a little compassion for people outside of your tiny circle of family and friends, if you have friends that is. That is after all, part of what makes you human, empathy, compassion and most importantly a heart.
I feel very sorry for you. It must be very lonely in your small little world that you wouldn't feel anything if a billion people died tomorrow as long as they weren't any of the people you count on your fingers. I don't know what is more chilling, feeling happy that people are dying or feeling nothing at all, at least the former is showing some kind of human emotion while the latter is just a cold and hollow shell.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hyperbolic much?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think it would effect you though, losing billions of lives, it always does. It sounds sort of what this dude with Asperger's syndrome said in a book, but it would be devastating if everyone thought like that... And very scary.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Human lives are precious. However, not having oil could cost human lives in other ways. Have you ever thought to yourself what might happen if it does get really scarce? We all know it will some day, but that will be a gradual growth not a "here today gone tomorrow" sort of thing. It is selfish, but I would prefer that the violence stay on the other side of the ocean.
I'm not even sure I am in favor of the war right now. I wanted Sadam dead, but that's over now. I don't really understand what is going on in the middle east at the moment. I despair of being able to even get an accurate picture. Every single piece of evidence seems so biassed one way or the other, and I don't have the energy to sort it out - not for the tiny bit of difference my one voice could play against the millions of other voices in the country. I'm not in control of the war, I have no real way to influence anyone who IS in control of it, so I simply accept it as a fact of life for now - I pray for the souls of those who die, and for it to end as peacefully as possible, and then turn my attention to things I can understand.
Is oil really the biggest thing we have to argue about anyway? There are so many other things going on in the world - isn't there anything we can positively focus energy on?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
We are already at peak oil. I say we find a new resource of energy and stop supporting places like Saudi Arabia who have horrible human rights violations.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
To go waaaaay back to the original post...
It's okay to politely disagree with Card on his own forum (at least in my opinion -- I'm aware that some people think even this is rude) but it is NOT okay to personally insult him.
Of course it's not okay to personally insult ANYONE, but understandably everyone just feels the need to every now and then. But when somebody comes to a forum that Card HIMSELF took the time for make for US, a forum he or any of his family members could potentially be reading (though I'm sure that's a thing of the past) and then dole out disgusting, incredibly insulting comments based on your own personal issues, it makes me sick to my stomach.
I can understand being angry at Bush and his supporters if you've lost friends and family in Iraq. I almost feel the same way and I haven't lost anyone. But how about writing all those thoughts down on a piece of paper and then tearing it up and throwing it in the fire? Then you can email Card privately and politely tell him why you disagree, sans personal insults. Yes you may be angry, but there's no reason to create more hate and humiliation in the world just because of that anger. You can do better than that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Whether we're at peak oil or not is questionable. And frankly, I think peak oil is the wrong way to frame things, I think we should be asking ourselves when we reach unsustainable oil.
There's going to be oil for a long time to come, and as long as we keep finding more oil, peak oil will keep getting pushed back, but one thing you really can't put the cork back in is the price of oil. Theoretically OPEC could flood the market with oil and kill the renwewable energy market, but I'm not wholly convinced that they could if they wanted to (and the way things are going, I don't think they need to). But the oil we keep finding that keeps pushing back the peak oil problem is going to be ultra expensive oil. We might hit $200 per barrel of oil by the end of this year, or next. It's not about no more oil, it's about spending so much on oil that the Middle East is bloated with cash and our trade imbalance implodes.
Becoming energy independent is becoming more and more important with each passing day. We've got some painful days ahead since we waited so long to start seriously switching over. Private industry is there, investing tens of billions in renewables, but the government needs to push harder and give incentives across the board, and it needs to spend a lot too. It's the most important issue to the US right now. Getting more oil is immaterial, getting off oil is essential.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Hyperbolic much?
Who is this directed at and what does it mean? I tried looking it up but only found the mathematical definitions (granted, it was a quick search).
Edit: I think I found the meaning. Something about exaggeration. Still not sure who it's directed at though.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do not want to insult OSC, I respect his writing skillz and he makes interesting points, but he has been working my last nerves for quite a while. Especially since that one article. That was inaccurate, inpolite and uncalled for. Plus it concerned me, the audience he's writing stuff like this for. They may mostly only know about the most stereotypical details of the issue he is talking about. They read the articles and it only enforces stereotypes and stirs up hatred because hatred comes from not knowing the whole perspective even when you are insisting you are not being hateful and in fact have many friends like that. If someone wrote something like that about a group he belonged to he'd be very angry and justifiably so... The clear picture will never come out if it continues... But it's hard to fight against that sort of thing .
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: Oh, and the "few cents a gallon" quote came from MR's response to my initial posts. ...
@Mucus: I think it's the worst probable scenario directly connected with this war. The things that I think you are thinking about could happen whether we went to Iraq or not (I'm looking at Iran).
Keep in mind that "few cents a gallon" would be spread out a lot among all the nations. Due to the way the market works (at least during peacetime), AKAIK crude oil prices are essentially determined on the international market. Even if the US could get a "sweet deal" on Iraqi oil (which is not a forgone conclusion, why sell to us for cheaper than anyone else) that would just mean some company could quickly sell oil from the States internationally, eliminating the difference.
Second, worst probable? Seriously? How about Iraq falling into a full-blown civil war? I would consider that worse than a simple withdrawal of US troops without securing oil on both a "normal" human scale of whats worse or even if your only metric is the morally dubious measurement of oil prices.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The fate of human civilization is possibly at stake here.
I think I heard that last line in a trailer for a Michael Bay film Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Tara said: "a forum he or any of his family members could potentially be reading (though I'm sure that's a thing of the past)"
Don't be so sure KAC
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kacard: Tara said: "a forum he or any of his family members could potentially be reading (though I'm sure that's a thing of the past)"
Don't be so sure KAC
Feel free to drag your husband over to these forums on occasion Mrs. Card! Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by kacard: Tara said: "a forum he or any of his family members could potentially be reading (though I'm sure that's a thing of the past)"
Don't be so sure KAC
Yay! Hello. Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kacard: Tara said: "a forum he or any of his family members could potentially be reading (though I'm sure that's a thing of the past)"
Don't be so sure KAC
Feel free to drag your husband over to these forums on occasion Mrs. Card!
But maybe not this particular thread. Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I don't know, he may find it funny. It's obvious that people will not always agree with him. I mean, no one every agrees with ANYONE all the time - and sometimes it's funny to see just how complete the disagreement is.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Mmmm somehow I don't think this is the kind of thing he'll think is funny.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No, but he might appreciate how reasonable and measured most people are being in their disagreement with him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, but he might appreciate how reasonable and measured most people are being in their disagreement with him.
This has not been my experience in the past.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Not to mention the first post on this thread is not very reasonable and measured.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
quote:No, but he might appreciate how reasonable and measured most people are being in their disagreement with him.
That's exactly why I pointed out this thread to him Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Compared to the first post, everything else has been the voice of sweet reason.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
In the words of the great philosopher Steven Wright: For every action, there's an equal and opposite criticism.
[ January 13, 2008, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: sylvrdragon ]
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Wow, I like that quote. It's so true!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:No, but he might appreciate how reasonable and measured most people are being in their disagreement with him.
This has not been my experience in the past.
I'm not sure if I agree with the intended or ironic of the two meanings of that statement.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Compared to the first post, everything else has been the voice of sweet reason.
Compared to the OP, the ranting of the meth-addicted hobo in the alley is the voice of sweet reason.
"What's that? Space people took your marshmallows?"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
sylverdragon,
Out of curiousity, does your philosophy of "it's okay to kill people if we want their stuff" apply only to nations, or does it work on a smaller scale as well?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:No, but he might appreciate how reasonable and measured most people are being in their disagreement with him.
This has not been my experience in the past.
I'm not sure if I agree with the intended or ironic of the two meanings of that statement.
I can't figure out what the ironic meaning is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That would depend on what the intended meaning is.
The literal reading of your statement would be that your experience in the past is that OSC did not appreciate how reasonable and measured most people were in their disagreement with him.
I believe your intended meaning is to say that most people in your past experience weren't reasonable and measured in their disagreement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You are dead wrong about my intended meaning.
That's not to say that I don't think that there haven't been threads where most disagreement was not measured and reasonable. But I wasn't referencing them at all.
My intended meaning was that, based on my observation, a single rant such as the opening post in this thread is generally enough to ensure that OSC does not notice (or at least, gives no observable indications that he has noticed) any reasonable and measured disagreement present in the thread.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
And why should he?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I didn't say he should.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: sylvrdragon,
Out of curiousity, does your philosophy of "it's okay to kill people if we want their stuff" apply only to nations, or does it work on a smaller scale as well?
Mostly just with Nations. They can get away with it with little to no consequences (comparatively). Now, to put this into context, I think I should tell you my current beliefs about Morality.
Fairly recently, I've come to the conclusion that morality is nothing more than an equation run by our minds at the moment that a decision is put before us. Much like when we drive a car and have to determine how much to turn the wheel or how much pressure to apply to the brake pedal by weighing our options with past experiences. The only difference is that we work with perceived consequences and benefits instead of physical motions. The deeper you are able to look into a subject, the better fit you are to determine whether it's "Worth it" or not.
The reason I don't do drugs is that the harm it can do to my body and mind, the reputation that can potentially come by being a user, and the chance that I could be caught and be made subject to the penalties, is perceived as being greater than the brief joy that I would receive.
This same logic applies to stealing and fighting/killing. Not only do I factor in the cons of the action, but the pros of the inaction. As an honest, non-thieving, non-violent, sober person, I gain a reputation as someone worthy of trust and admiration. With that reputation can come many benefits.
So no, I don't do whatever I want because, unlike the US Government, I am not likely to get away with it. I think that when the people behind the curtain in the US Government look at this war, they see those 3000 Troops as %.00001 of the population sacrificed to make the other %99.99999 of the population X-amount happier, or at the very least, keep them the same for X-amount-of-time longer.
Keep in mind that this entire process that I just outlined is based on how much information you are basing your decisions on, or how "Deeply" you are able to see the situation. I am NOT saying right out that oil alone is enough to justify this war, but that it MIGHT be if we had all the numbers. Also, what I have been trying to get across in every content-including post that I've made on this thread is: I believe that the US Government has more information and ability with which to decide our involvement in Iraq than do any and all of the armchair analysts across the whole of the Internet.
I also raised that possibility that the government put Bush forward, acting like an idiot, so that the American people don't TRY to second guess our motives in this war. Maybe he's just a scapegoat to take all the heat from the casualties that we sustain. Looking stupid on national TV seems to me like a good way to shirk a good amount of accountability though. Instead of dragging him out of the White House and hanging him, people treat him like a kid that tracked mud on the carpet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What, other than blind faith and hope, leads you to believe that the government has some secret we aren't being told about? And what makes you so happy about the idea that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is puppet for a shadow government that holds those secrets?
I won't even get into your .00001% vs. 99.whatever% gibberish, which while your numbers are true has nothing to do with actual real life cause and effect. I'm much more curious as to your answer to my first two questions.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What, other than blind faith and hope, leads you to believe that the government has some secret we aren't being told about? And what makes you so happy about the idea that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is puppet for a shadow government that holds those secrets?
I won't even get into your .00001% vs. 99.whatever% gibberish, which while your numbers are true has nothing to do with actual real life cause and effect. I'm much more curious as to your answer to my first two questions.
Logic. Do you really think that one person makes decisions for 300,000,000 people? If the government DOESN'T have entire teams of people analyzing the information before committing to a national act, then I would be very worried. You know, The Pentagon, NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc. What do you think these organizations are FOR? They make decisions for this country.
Democracy has limits to what it can reasonably control. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust the general population to make complex decisions. This is why we typically only control the "common sense" laws that affect our day to day lives. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, I don't think it matters who is president, as the decisions they make are likely to be pretty cut and dry once all of the information is known. In other words, one person is likely to make the same decision as another when given the same information. You can quote me on that (so long as you keep in the context of my OPINION).
Also, you keep saying "Shadow Government" like there's some Bond villain sitting in a chair in front of a giant monitor twirling his mustache. I'm saying that when the appointed advisers last longer than the elected officials, who is telling who what to do? I can almost see a newly elected president coming to the White House for the first time and someone saying "You just sit over there and keep quiet. Let the people who understand the situation take care of things." Well... ok, maybe not THAT bad, but to insist that the President himself is the one DOING these things is ludicrous (in my opinion). The information is collected by, analyzed by, and applied by the experts. That is then passed up to the top where the president reads it off a teleprompter. Maybe in some cases where the decision doesn't matter, or the analysis splits it down the middle, can the president actually CHOOSE a course of action, but any other time, I "hope" it's the experts calling the shots.
Also, you keep throwing around the words "Faith" and "Hope". I don't see it. It's logic and reason, and most importantly: Theory. I don't claim to have any inside information. You, however, certainly seem to be doing just that with phrases like:
quote:I won't even get into your .00001% vs. 99.whatever% gibberish, which while your numbers are true has nothing to do with actual real life cause and effect.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright, I guess I will get into your gibberish. The supposition that it's worth it to sacrifice that tiny percentage of the population to make them HAPPIER I think is dumb. The government isn't there to keep us happier, in fact I'm pretty sure the framers of the Constitution wanted our ability in the PURSUIT of happiness to never be hindered, but there's nothing as to the government's responsibility to actually make us happy. I think when you start us down that road, you're walking us to Rome, where despite the atrocities committed behind curtains, all the people really cared about were bread and circuses (hell I think we're already on that road, you're just pushing us six steps further on it). If you replace happiness there with safety, then I'm all for it. Certainly 3,000 lives for the safety of 300 million plus is a worthwhile sacrifice. But the problem I have with your claim is that those 3,000 men and women didn't die making us safer, and certainly not happier. Like I said in my last post, I don't have a problem with your numbers, I have a problem with your proposed cause and effect.
It IS Faith and Hope. You have no real idea as to what happens behind closed doors. And I start to wonder where the line between logic and hope really is. Isn't believing in something without any real proof thereof the definition of faith? You don't KNOW, so regardless of whatver logic leads you there, you HOPE that it is true, and you believe it's true because that's what you have faith in. I'm sorry if you're uncomfortable with that, but I don't see any other way out.
And forgive me, but why do we even bother with presidential elections? The kinds of policy advisors you are talking about do NOT outlast the elected officials in the White House. The elected officials bring those people in with them. Places like the CIA, the FBI, NSA etc provide the White House with analysis and information (not very good lately, but that's a different argument), and then the President talks with his senior advisors, that he hired himself and brought with him, and then he makes a decision. But if he ISN'T making the decision, then you're talking about a coup, because you can't really call it much else when people we didn't elect are making decisions for us, and it's nothing other than a Shadow Government is mysterious figures behind closed doors are making those choices with a puppet up front to take the hits and recite the party lines. It's not a Bond villain, it's how Russia is going to be in a couple years, or how any number of dictators have clung to power in third world nations under the guise of Democracy.
Yes, I really think that one person makes decisions for 300 million people. He/she doesn't make ALL the decisions, that's why we have divisions of government, to say nothing of separation of powers. But in the Executive Brance, regardless of the advice he or she is getting from other people, the decision is made by one guy. And if it isn't made by one guy, then it's illegal and unconstitutional, and I have a big damn problem with it.
I don't know what you're describing, but it's not the United States of America under the Constitution. It sounds a lot more like Iran, China, or the USSR though, though to be fair, without the elections, which according to you are only a formality.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:Certainly 3,000 lives for the safety of 300 million plus is a worthwhile sacrifice.
(Not trying to pick a fight)
But I've heard this before, and I wanted to make the point that I don't think it's a worthwhile sacrifice because the numbers don't follow. We don't KNOW that 300 million Americans needed safety from Iraqis. If we hadn't gone to Iraq, would we be any less safe than we are now that we've spent 3,000 lives there? (Answer: maybe, but not necessarily). We started a pre-emptive war that has cost 100,000 Iraqi lives for our "safety".
I just think that it's wrong to say "3,000 for 300 million" because we wouldn't lose 300 million Americans if we hadn't made the sacrifice.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Lyrhawn, my theory (AKA Opinion) is subject to change as/if I acquire more information. Isn't that the very opposite of Faith in context that you originally used it? Doesn't Faith imply some sort of staying power? Regardless, I'm tired of juggling words and definitions when I'm trying to put something into context. Bad enough that I have to write "in my opinion" in a dozen places every post I make here. Put away the magnifying glass and take a step back. Maybe you'll get a better view of the whole picture if you're not looking so thoroughly for holes.
Anyway, providing the analysis and information, for all intents and purposes, IS making the decision. Who is going to go against what the experts say? Honestly, who is going to second guess the people who are PAID to know the subject on which they are advising? Unless that Senior adviser is god himself, then his job seems to me to be the ultimate Yes-Man. Either that, or the person that "advises" our nation into the ground, but of course, he'll never take the blame for THAT. That's the president's job.
Furthermore, do you understand the implication of the word "Happiness" that you emphasized so sarcastically? I'll give you a hint:
I'm not happy with anything less than living. I'm not happy with anything less than my current standards of living.
How many people do you know that wouldn't say that? I'll bet they're in the minority.
An aside: The funniest part about this entire debate is that I made all of this up on the spot when I made my first response except for the part about it not mattering who's in office. I've said that before. The more I argue with you, however, the more I like this theory, and the more I believe it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
quote:Certainly 3,000 lives for the safety of 300 million plus is a worthwhile sacrifice.
(Not trying to pick a fight)
But I've heard this before, and I wanted to make the point that I don't think it's a worthwhile sacrifice because the numbers don't follow. We don't KNOW that 300 million Americans needed safety from Iraqis. If we hadn't gone to Iraq, would we be any less safe than we are now that we've spent 3,000 lives there? (Answer: maybe, but not necessarily). We started a pre-emptive war that has cost 100,000 Iraqi lives for our "safety".
I just think that it's wrong to say "3,000 for 300 million" because we wouldn't lose 300 million Americans if we hadn't made the sacrifice.
Just a reminder that we aren't talking about just the 3000 soldiers, we are also talking about hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. While I know that the their lives - lives of actual people - are still worth nothing compared to the convenience of sylvrdragon, we should at least count them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
quote:Certainly 3,000 lives for the safety of 300 million plus is a worthwhile sacrifice.
(Not trying to pick a fight)
But I've heard this before, and I wanted to make the point that I don't think it's a worthwhile sacrifice because the numbers don't follow. We don't KNOW that 300 million Americans needed safety from Iraqis. If we hadn't gone to Iraq, would we be any less safe than we are now that we've spent 3,000 lives there? (Answer: maybe, but not necessarily). We started a pre-emptive war that has cost 100,000 Iraqi lives for our "safety".
I just think that it's wrong to say "3,000 for 300 million" because we wouldn't lose 300 million Americans if we hadn't made the sacrifice.
Did you read my entire post? I'd think if you had, it would have been clear that I meant 3,000 for 3 million hypothetically, not in this specific situation. If we could be sure that 3,000 lives being sacrificed really did effect the safety of the 300 million, then yes, it'd be a worthwhile sacrifice. But as I said in my post, that isn't the case in Iraq.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
sylvr -
quote:Lyrhawn, my theory (AKA Opinion) is subject to change as/if I acquire more information. Isn't that the very opposite of Faith in context that you originally used it? Doesn't Faith imply some sort of staying power? Regardless, I'm tired of juggling words and definitions when I'm trying to put something into context. Bad enough that I have to write "in my opinion" in a dozen places every post I make here. Put away the magnifying glass and take a step back. Maybe you'll get a better view of the whole picture if you're not looking so thoroughly for holes.
You don't have to keep qualifying your statements by saying "in your opinion," if you don't want to. I think it's obvious at this point that you are speaking for yourself. And no, it isn't contrary to faith as I've described it, because you're saying in the future you'd change your mind as new data comes in. But at the moment you're taking it on faith that any such information will ever come at all! Until you get a starting set of info, it's still faith. I suspect that anyone on this board's faith is subject to change if given more information. For example, if God himself came down to the most faithful Hatracker and said "yeah, the (insert religious tome of choice here) was all crap, none of it is true, carry on," then that would probably change their world view a bit. In other words, yeah, information can effect faith. But you're trying to peg this as more of a scientific thing, that info will change your hypothesis and so on, but your starting position has more to do with faith and hope, because you expect that in the end, the information will bear out your baseless starting supposition.
I'm not picking at minor holes in your argument, I think the entire argument is pretty well flawed, so I'm going after the whole thing.
quote:Anyway, providing the analysis and information, for all intents and purposes, IS making the decision. Who is going to go against what the experts say? Honestly, who is going to second guess the people who are PAID to know the subject on which they are advising? Unless that Senior adviser is god himself, then his job seems to me to be the ultimate Yes-Man. Either that, or the person that "advises" our nation into the ground, but of course, he'll never take the blame for THAT. That's the president's job.
Again I have to disagree. You're assuming that all the analysis of the information coming to the nexus of decision making (the president) is ALL IDENTICAL! That's a huge, HUGE leap to make. If they all thought the same thing all the time, there'd be no need to have more than one of them. The truth is that the president gets a lot of conflicting information on a lot of things. I mean look at every major issue in the nation right now. Democrats and Republicans take different sides on almost every issue, all of them use facts to back them up, and have different solutions, and there's no clear choice. A president wades into that muck, that bulk of info and expert analysis and chooses a path he thinks is best. Suggesting that we'll always just go with whatever is best sort of ignores not only 230 years of American history, but also maybe 4,000 years of world history. But in more recent memory, Bush has repeatedly ignored what experts have told him in decisions he has made. Well, either Bush has, or this cabal you're describing has, but either way, expert opinions don't always rule the day. Your view of the presidency drops him from leader of the nation to national puppet and effigy. You don't seem to think much of Democracy.
I'll let a little ground go to see how in theory, in theory I could see how what you're sort of describing is sort of true. Yes, expert opinions from professionals who are paid to know their stuff comes together and it'd seem silly to ignore that expert advice, but look at the last 7 years, it happens! Smart people ignore smart advice, dumb people ignore smart advice, and sometimes smart people follow dumb advice! I could provide examples of all three from the last 7 years of Bush's presidency. The problem with your idea of how government works is that the last 7 years doesn't even slightly bear you out.
quote:Furthermore, do you understand the implication of the word "Happiness" that you emphasized so sarcastically? I'll give you a hint:
I'm not happy with anything less than living. I'm not happy with anything less than my current standards of living.
How many people do you know that wouldn't say that? I'll bet they're in the minority.
Not sure where you are going with this. Not being happy with anything less than living would be death, which is covered under the life part of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I'm sure everyone would say they aren't happy with less than their current standard of living, a lot of people probably aren't even happy with their CURRENT standard of living. But the government isn't there to magically elevate them to a higher status (sounds more like Communism to me, but whatever floats your boat), it's to grease the skids more or less so that you can get yourself there through hard work if you really want to. Therefore the idea that we'd go to war and lose 3,000 lives to make people marginally happier (which hasn't worked btw) is ridiculous. If we wanted to do that, why not just invade Canada? We'd be infinitely richer than by going into Iraq, and it probably would've been a bit easier.
quote:An aside: The funniest part about this entire debate is that I made all of this up on the spot when I made my first response except for the part about it not mattering who's in office. I've said that before. The more I argue with you, however, the more I like this theory, and the more I believe it.
It always matters who is in office. Look at many of the critical moments in US history and tell me that a different guy in office, ANY other guy, would've made the exact same choices given the data at hand? You can't say that. You can't say that any president would've invaded IRAQ after 9/11. That came totally out of left field. It certainly didn't follow a train of logic that most people on the left readily saw.
The fact that this continued conversation is pushing you further into that camp leads me to believe that it's a good idea to end it now.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Dagonee, I never said you said he should. (The appropriate response here is, "and I never said that you said that I said that he should." It's a fun game!)
(Actually, the appropriate response would just be "shut up," and so I will.)
Regarding the continuing conversation, I find it much easier to reach acceptable conclusions because I do not believe in Moral Relativism, a belief which sylvrdragon seems to be presenting. Now how one arrives at a premise of Objective Morality, and how one determines what is or is not Objectively Moral... well, that's a subject for a different thread, I think.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Forgive me, Lyr, I wasn't trying to respond to YOUR claim as much as that sentence out of context. I'd heard it before and wanted to add my 2 cents--it wasn't a criticism of your post.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The Magic Rat is apparently taking up the time honored tradition of ending up looking worse than the position he's criticizing. It's really too bad that this childish rant had to head up the official forum response considering that I really wanted people to be talking about how OSC seems now extraordinarily difficult to differentiate from hacks writing for WorldNetDaily or Newsmax.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I too am willing to give ground in a couple areas (some things occurred to me between now and my last post) but that's gonna have to wait till the morning as I have work right now. I'll edit into this post if it's not too buried by then.
PS: Maybe it's just me, but I think the tone of this thread is cooling down a bit, and that's a good thing. I hope the trend continues. It's always good when either side is willing to give even a little.
Edit:
I'm going to attempt to outline the basic premises that lead me to my theory.
The first is that I can't bring myself to take things from the government at face value, not everything at least. When I see people who are supposed to have vast resources of information make stupid decisions, I come to one of two conclusions. The first is that it wasn't a bad decision at all; we just don't know the whole story. The second is that it was nigh impossible to make the right decision at the time due to unavailable information. Hind-sight is 20-20 after all. Sometimes you don't know it's a bad decision until after it's made.
The second premise is somewhat tied to the first, and that is: There are some matters that the government may not want the general public to know about for some reason or another. Some things that the government does may fall into a morally gray area, and others may potentially cause a panic. I can't fault the government for valuing the people's overall confidence/happiness/peace over their right-to-know.
The third premise is that this country is already pretty well established. Our forefathers already set the ground work and took care of all of the hard parts like making the fundamental laws and setting up a system where the people can dictate their own way of living. We don't need particularly bright presidents to keep the thing from falling apart. To me, the office of President seems more like a tradition than a necessity. These days, someone could probably write software to do the president's job. Hell, it might even do it better.
That being said, I assure you that I'm not delusional. I realize that I may very well be looking too deeply into this. As you said though, I too can see how it could be possible. However, even if this isn't true today, I can definitely see it coming to pass some day in the not so distant future.
[ January 16, 2008, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: sylvrdragon ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: This is all I have to say and I am sure you will just read this and ignore it. I had to say what I had to say and I hope you can find it in you to respect me for that, not that it means much anymore coming from you. It's funny to think back now to when I read Ender's Game when I was 13 years old and imagined what the author of this book was like. You sir are nothing like I imagined. You sir, are a dissapointment
I just know that he is up at night just dead inside after having not lived up to your 13 year old fantasy.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
...As I don't think anyone else has said it yet: Welcome to Hatrack, The Magic Rat. You're wrong.
There are plenty of people here who would agree with many of your statements (as you have hopefully noticed), in the broad if not the narrow sense. I would caution you not to make broad assumptions about Mr. Card's beliefs based on his views on Iraq. I'd also suggest that you perhaps consider taking a step back and re-reading your messages before you post, and seriously consider deleting them if they seem more likely to enflame and irritate than effectively make your case.
That's not an insult. It worked for Abraham Lincoln, it can work for you.
You're certainly not the first person to express disappointment with Card's editorial style. In particular, his tendency to treat supporting editorials and anecdotes as comparable or even superior to opposing verified news reports and figures is frustrating in the extreme, as is the tendency to ascribe motivations ranging from stupidity to a lack of moral fiber to those holding an opposing viewpoint, in flagrant disregard of other factors which may have brought them to that view.
My own view is that the invasion of Iraq was a colossal mistake, one which has highlighted the fact that while Saddam was a ruthless tyrant, he was also all that was keeping ancient enemies apart. Our own NIE has suggested that the invasion of Iraq has not made the United States safer from terrorism, and indeed, may have had the opposite effect. In the meantime, the violence that has errupted in our presence has cost thousands of Iraqi lives and turned most of the professional class so vital to rebuilding a functional society into refugees. And while "only" 3,929 US soldiers have died in Iraq operations, many thousands more have been injured; many others return to broken homes, PTSD, night terrors, and other debilitating situations.
To say nothing of what has become of Afghanistan while our attention has wandered.
If nothing else, I rather wish Card would acknowledge that the successes that have resulted from "the surge" are a repudiation of his earlier statements that the inadequate ground forces marshalled by Donald Rumsfeld and company were, in fact, a masterstroke of balancing Iraqi public opinion versus military necessity.
It is true that there have been some successes, post-"surge": casualties, both military and civilian, have dropped significantly. The problem is that the current state is not a maintainable one; it rides on the back of former insurgents who have become a kind of neighborhood watch. Baghdad has not become a coherent whole; while there are "safer" places, there are many neighborhoods where being on the wrong side of the Shia/Sunni division can get one killed. But the biggest problem is that the new Iraqi government continues to drag its feet on issues of reconciliation. Without willingness to bring about real power sharing, the best U.S. forces can hope to do is hold a status quo. A status quo that will continue to come at enormous costs to America in money, focus, security, and damage to a generation of bright young people.
It's only right to acknowledge that, if the United States withdraws from Iraq now, things are likely to get bad very quickly. It seems entirely likely that the Shia population will jump on the Sunni like a cat on a canary. But it's also perfectly reasonable to point out that violence continues in our presence, Turkish-Kurdish tensions are mounting despite it, and we seem scarcely closer to a genuinely stable Iraq than we did four years ago; also, that our presence lends prestige to Al Qaeda as a group that seems to be taking on a superpower with some success. It may be, horror though it is to contemplate, that a stable Iraq can only arise out of a civil war.
It may also be that a credible threat to withdraw U.S. troops is the only thing that might induce the recalcitant Iraqi government to act towards its own stabilization.
It's difficult, by definition, to discuss "lesser of two evils" matters with someone who views the same situation as black-and-white.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You've got a point, Sterling.
Also, the econony is NOT GOOD. I've been trying to find a job for 3 months. One temp place said it's because of the real estate crisis. They haven't been able to find as many temp jobs since October!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah but you've got to admire Bush's tenacity. In the face of being so wrong for so many years, they come up with this BRILLIANT idea: send more troops! Which they do, and in concert with several things that we had nothing to do with, violence is dramatically reduced, and it's as if everything that went on before that doesn't matter, because they had this breakthrough idea!
And a lot of people are buying it. It's ballsy to do that and expect people to buy it after so many years of being wrong.
Eh, on second thought you don't have to admire or respect that. You just have to fight it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Fight what?
Bush?
Troops in Iraq?
What am I supposed to shout amen to?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
In case anybody wonders why I just lurk at Hatrack now and almost never post anymore, this thread pretty much sums it all up in one fell swoop.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You're Orson Scott Card?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
Great forum (I do not mean just this thread). Regulars here, as it has been demonstrated, pick out a poorly argued post instantly and tear it to pieces. I find it delightful, really. Taking as an example this thread, I think that The Magic Rat didn't fully understand that his post indeed lacked any serious argumentative structure, that he was well understood, and the critique is well-placed. It sounds like he is genuinely taken aback by what he perceives as negativity pointed towards him while it is mostly his lack of analytical writing skill that causes misunderstanding, isn't it?
Anyway, I wonder if a straightforward point-by-point reply to the original post would make the author less annoyed (not that I volunteer to do so). However, that would take most of the fun out of the thread... Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Fight what?
Bush?
Troops in Iraq?
What am I supposed to shout amen to?
You got it the first time, Bush, or to be more specific, the verbal crap he flings at us. I don't care what you shout amen to, and where in there did you get that we should fight the troops? That's a bit out of left field, but whatever. The man is full of it. He's the leader of our military and our government, he's bungled this war, or appointed and refused to fire for years people who bungled it for him, and then after years of people saying "send in more troops!" he sends in more troops, pretends it's new revolutionary idea even though there had been a half dozen surges before it, and all of a sudden we should forget everything that came before it because THIS TIME we're winning, but the political failures aren't worth addressing?
Yeah, you fight it, because the kind of apathy that we're displayed these past few years is the kind of thing that got us here, and at some point you have to stop giving up and fight tooth and nail against every assumed moment of public stupidity, the kind of thing that lets him say the things he says and expect to get away with it.
What's your take on it?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sorry-- I should have said, "Troops being in Iraq."
But thanks for clarifying what you meant.
If the Democrats don't get us out of Iraq, as they seem to have promised, how will that make you feel?
I'm not sure how I feel about Bush and company. I can't excuse the awful mismanagement of post-invasion Iraq. I don't think pulling out of Iraq is a good idea, either. I'm grateful the troop surge seems to be working; I think maybe we should send MORE people there-- more folks to support rebuilding the infrastructure, more diplomats, more managers. You know-- people whose job is not strictly to keep the peace but to make the peace meaningful for Joe Iraq.
I don't see any party pushing that line, though.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It sounds like he is genuinely taken aback by what he perceives as negativity pointed towards him while it is mostly his lack of analytical writing skill that causes misunderstanding, isn't it?
I CAN'T STAND THE WAY PEOPLE POST IN CAPITAL LETTERS ALL THE TIME. PEOPLE WHO POST IN CAPITAL LETTERS ARE STUPID AND SMELL FUNNY. SO I WANTED TO POST HERE AND LET PEOPLE WHO POST IN CAPITAL LETTERS KNOW THAT I THINK THEY ARE BAD.
WHAT?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Scott -
I won't know the answer to your first question for two years. Regardless of who is the next president, it's impossible to get all the troops out in less than a year, which means I won't know how I'll feel for another two or so years. But if you want me to guesstimate, it depends on a number of other things, it depends on what we're being promised while we're there. If it's just the status quo and we're still there, then I'll be pissed. Bush's failing as far as I'm concerned is giveaways. He's sending troops and money over there by the boatload, with absolutely nothing in sight to show the Iraqi government they have to have any sort of urgency. It's not a matter of our level of commitment, we LITERALLY cannot stay there for another 10 years like Bush said "wouldn't bother" him. They need to be prodded. If a Republican president wins the White House and the Dems in the Congress are still stymied, I won't be mad at Democrats, they can only do so much in the face of a veto. If a Democrat is in the White House and nothing gets done at all, I'll be pissed.
For years now I've felt that we either need to blanket the country with troops or leave. Either we're serious or we're not. The surge was a small piece of that, and it appears to have made a dent, but we're still far from winning. Now is the perfect time to start telling them over there that our help isn't going to last forever. They need to get moving, or they'll miss their chance.
But frankly, they are in no rush. They seem content to spend billions of our dollars to rebuild their country, and we're not their piggybank or their blank check.
I trust the Democrats to do that much. They'll push, they'll prod, they'll make it clear there is a time limit, and I think that'll get things done faster so we can leave peacefully. If a meaningful peace is never going to happen, then let's get out and let them slug it out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This best part about this thread is that after Chris Bridges tells the opening ranter that his method is hypocritical and crappy...
...what do we hear in response from someone whose basic defense has been, "Everyone who disagrees with me is being partisan!"
*crickets*
Opening Ranter: You're making even people who strongly and consistently disagree with President Bush's policies cringe with the way you're stating your objections.
Think about that. Don't just address everyone else except the person who you can't assail on partisan grounds and pay attention to everyone else who you can.
And by the way, this side of the board doesn't see as much play as the other. On the other side, there are dozens of other people who consistently disagree with Bush who would be just as dismayed at your approach.
Here's a helpful political exercise for you: pretend for a moment (strain your imagination) that you aren't a member of a tiny, sainted minority of Americans who view political issues with mature, thoughtful, compassionate, and objective eyes, and that people who disagree with your tone are not necessarily partisan meatheads who don't deserve a serious response.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: It sounds like he is genuinely taken aback by what he perceives as negativity pointed towards him while it is mostly his lack of analytical writing skill that causes misunderstanding, isn't it?
I CAN'T STAND THE WAY PEOPLE POST IN CAPITAL LETTERS ALL THE TIME. PEOPLE WHO POST IN CAPITAL LETTERS ARE STUPID AND SMELL FUNNY. SO I WANTED TO POST HERE AND LET PEOPLE WHO POST IN CAPITAL LETTERS KNOW THAT I THINK THEY ARE BAD.
WHAT?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You're Orson Scott Card?
Hahaha!
No, alas, I do not have that much talent. but it's pretty easy to see why he's avoiding this place. Although happily there were plenty of sensible and pleasant things said in this thread. Still, the staggering amount of unpleasantness is - well - unpleasant.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
I love this thread. It shows passion, loyalty, humor and strong feelings/arguments on all twenty-seven sides of the issues. This almost makes willing to get re-addicted.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
This is my first post on this forum. There is no other side of the issue in Iraq, the civil rights abuses, the fact congress ignores the American people. I'm sure Card has predicted all the events that will happen in the future if America stays on the same path and perhaps he has discovered a silver lining that no one else has seen yet... but if not, Card is a very foolish man, he may speak about knowing things and even seems to be enlightening at times... but to have the wool pulled over his eyes in the name of "security", "freedom", and "liberty" is just kinda sad to me.
70% of Americans want to get out of Iraq, all the old-timers don't seem to understand yet, they think the government chooses the citizens over it's own self interests... but that's not true and there's plenty of evidence to back up this claim.
Card knows the power of the "nets" and what it can do, he wrote about Demosthenes, how can he not see what is happening in America? How the blogosphere and the internet is completely disrupting the disinformation that is released daily by the Bush administration? Maybe he imagines that we will lose the freedom of the internet? Then just be back to how we were before? Heck maybe the internet is already heavily censored and we just don't know it.
Who knows, if you're a Republican, that's all well and good but if you're still supporting Bush based on his principles... o_O what principles? More spending? More Government? Less Freedoms? Crashing Economy? Yeah GW was a great choice, America is on the verge of collapse financially
If OSC is avoiding this place because of his political views, he must be pretty weak.. so I don't think that's the case. Someone so good at writing could write his way out of any situation, so i don't think he's not coming here because people disagree with him. Perhaps he knows he is wrong and doesn't want to rehash what he's already said? It can be painful to acknowledge mistakes.
I don't know if you all know this... but just because someone writes amazing stories doesn't mean that something isn't slightly unhinged in them. L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer as well, he wrote so well people believed he was teaching a religion. Not saying OSC is like that... I'm just saying not to treat him as an idol. That said.. I love his work and hope to see a response to supporting the man who has so far been responsible for the deaths of 2 million Iraqi civilians and the displacement of 4 million. I wonder if any of them read Ender's game? What do you think?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting way to introduce yourself to the forum.
Welcome to Hatrack.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Welcome to Hatrack.
You're wrong.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Scott R -- I really needed a great laugh tonight. Thanks! KAC
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"If OSC is avoiding this place because of his political views, he must be pretty weak..."
You can have new OSC books, or you can have him posting here. Not both. I personally would like to see the last Alvin Maker book more than I'd like to have him hanging out here flaming his detractors, wouldn't you? Not that he and I see eye-to-eye on most political issues, but I've given up on seeing him change much politically. I haven't yet given up on that last Alvin book, or a really good Ender movie script. Not yet.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Excellent point, Steven. There are only so many hours in the day. And the number of projects he has going at the same time is incredible.
OSC didn't build Hatrack so HE could post, it built it so YOU could.
And he goes to a lot of trouble and expense to keep it a safe and friendly place for you to do just that. The web page without the forums serves our needs just fine -- but OSC is committed to having a place for civilized conversation, even if he doesn't always have time to participate. If that's not good enough, I guess we could just quit. Our lives would be less stressful.
[ January 30, 2008, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hey, something I agree with steven on!
Yeah, we really need the next Alvin book. My daughter has just finished book #5, and book #6 won't hold her long.
kacard and OSC are teh awesome, whether they have the time to play with us or not.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Anyone else find Snowspot's use of the "o_O" emoticon to be something that somehow...distracting?
"One of my eyes is inflating while my mouth is expressionless!"
Is that what it means? I've never been sure.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I made kacard laugh.
I win the forum.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Here's a helpful political exercise for you: pretend for a moment (strain your imagination) that you aren't a member of a tiny, sainted minority of Americans who view political issues with mature, thoughtful, compassionate, and objective eyes, and that people who disagree with your tone are not necessarily partisan meatheads who don't deserve a serious response.
Amen.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
At the end of the day, I think you just have to accept that no amount of armchair analysis is going to nail the situation dead on. I highly highly doubt that it's possible for anyone here (myself, and even OSC included) to have enough information, or to make the right connections to justify or damn the war in Iraq with 100% certainty
That's not to say that we can't discuss it. Just don't get bent out of shape when someone doesn't agree with your view of the situation.
That being said, I DO wish Mr. Card had time to post here once in a while. Blogs are one thing, but dialog is on a whole new level. It's hard to back up your articles when you don't defend them in the least; and when you post in the tone that OSC does, I think they NEED to be defended. When something is written with the confidence of someone who KNOWS they're right, then allowed to be torn to shreds without a word of defense from the author, then I think that in the long run, more people will be swung in the opposite direction than the writer initially intended.
That might even make a good reverse psychology pitch: Charismatic writer secretly comments against his/her real beliefs with confidence, then invites a wide range of intellectuals to comment, then doesn't defend it, allowing his/her argument to be quashed in the eyes of the public. Like a boxer taking a fall. (not to imply that Mr. Card is doing this. This is just stream of consciousness talking at this point. My post probably should have ended 2 paragraphs ago)
Posted by kghuneim (Member # 11468) on :
I personally think we should leave the magic rat alone. He has an opinion, and that is that. While it may come off as harsh, he has his reasoning. It's the same as him thinking Mr. Card's opinions were harsh. The important thing is that he likes Ender's Game, and that is all that matters. That is why ninety percent of us are here anyway. Just tell Mr. Card to put out another legitimate Ender and we will all get along just fine.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The important thing is that he likes Ender's Game, and that is all that matters.
It isn't.
Things like being civil, not lying, showing good faith, supporting your opinions when asked...those things matter too. (I'm not saying that Magic Rat did all these things, or that Scott Card does them; I'm just saying they matter to this forum)
Welcome to Hatrack.
You're wrong, too.
Posted by kghuneim (Member # 11468) on :
I suppose i should have stated that that was a joke at the end. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Me personally, I sort of sympathize with the magic rat, because upon reading Ender's game when I was like 11, Orson Scott Card was instantly my favorite author, even though I hadn't really read any other books. Now, while he is still a fantastic writer, I just wonder how could he possibly approve of Bush. This is possibly the most corrupt presidency in the history of the united states. I used to look up to Mr. Card like he was a mentor. I am an independent, but it is hard to see a man I look up put so much faith in a corrupt person like Bush. This is just a rant, but that is how I feel.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Before you decide that this is "the most corrupt presidency in the history of the United States" I suggest a little history reading.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, Kristine, which presidency would you say was the most corrupt?
Posted by kghuneim (Member # 11468) on :
quote:Originally posted by kacard: Before you decide that this is "the most corrupt presidency in the history of the United States" I suggest a little history reading.
Oh I know my history my friend, and in my opinion which i have the right to have, this is the most corrupt.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's really very hard to decide which presidency was the most corrupt. It's probably pretty difficult to argue that the current administration is not thoroughly corrupt, but I'd be seriously intimidated by any request to place it on a sliding scale of corruption relative to, say, Taylor's administration.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Maybe he's not the most corrupt. It's politics. I trust rats more than politicians and I'm only half joking about that. But I sure don't trust him anyway. i just do not like his policies one bit.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Perhaps one of few administrations so willing to blatantly abuse our rights as citizens and the rights of people in general.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm not a fan of the Bush administration at all, but there have been presidents who have been more willing to curtail the rights of US citizens. Bush hasn't taken to confiscating the property of a particular demographic and sending those people to internment camps, for example.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I didn't say he was the worst but good point. The Bush administration has had some pretty egregious violations though. I could literally go on for hours. It's not just the Patriot Act or Guantanamo either (a tad bit dehumanizing).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think dehumanizing prisoners, in and of itself, is necessarily evidence of corruption. Doing it and lying about it, however, probably is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Oh I know my history my friend, and in my opinion which i have the right to have, this is the most corrupt.
No one is disputing your right to your opinion. That has nothing to do with pointing out that your opinion is wrong, though.
Pick a standard of corruption, and we'll see if we can't find another, more corrupt administration, eh?
quote:He has an opinion, and that is that.
I don't understand why anyone ever says this on a discussion board, particularly when politics aren't just brought up but they're the point of the discussion.
Who's here to just find out a bunch of opinions, as opposed to actually discussing them? That's setting aside the fact that while the right to an opinion is equal, the opinions themselves are not.
"Mexicans are slothful, illiterate law-breakers, and we would all be better off if they stayed in Mexico." There's an opinion for you. Is 'that that'? I think not. Even though that's an opinion some have, it's a shameful, stupid, racist opinion and should not be accorded respect just because some idiot thinks it.
Posted by kghuneim (Member # 11468) on :
[QUOTE]That has nothing to do with pointing out that your opinion is wrong, though.
Pick a standard of corruption, and we'll see if we can't find another, more corrupt administration, eh?
[QUOTE]
Um let's see.......the fact that 3000+ American Soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead for absolutely nothing, that doesn't sound corrupt to you? You want to tell me it is ignorance, not corruption. This man is not an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing. Now please my friend, since we have started this debate, find me a more corrupt example than that, eh. And please don't get on my case for saying the man has an opinion and that is that. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, because that was pointless.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This man is not an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing.
Then they're not dying for nothing, are they? What do you think they're dying for?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:the fact that 3000+ American Soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead for absolutely nothing
"Nothing," as defined by whom? At the very least, a brutal dictator was deposed and brought to justice.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For a given definition of "justice." He was deposed and killed. I'm not sure it's really the same thing.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
If the peripheral conversations went to another thread -- maybe one titled "Iraq" or some such -- then OSC wouldn't have to see an insult at the top of the "Discussions about OSC" page any time he might decide to look. That is -- why not let this thread die?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Um let's see.......the fact that 3000+ American Soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead for absolutely nothing, that doesn't sound corrupt to you? You want to tell me it is ignorance, not corruption. This man is not an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing. Now please my friend, since we have started this debate, find me a more corrupt example than that, eh. And please don't get on my case for saying the man has an opinion and that is that. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, because that was pointless.
Please stop saying, 'my friend'. In the context it's patronizing.
Also, I did not say there was no corruption. You're not paying close attention to this discussion at all. I'm not interested in continuing it with you.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by kghuneim: This man is not an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing.
I think a big part of the tragedy of Iraq is that Bush didn't know what he was doing, despite a wide variety of intelligence available to illuminate the situation. If some reports are to be believed, he didn't even understand the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
Oh, I think he knew what he thought he was doing- I don't think even the most cynical minds would suggest that the deaths of thousands of Americans, tens of thousands (or more) Iraqis, an enormous blow to our international diplomacy, etc. etc. etc. was actually the goal of this exercise.
Of course, now we're facing the problem of a pathological institutional inability to admit to being wrong and accept responsibility.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Please stop saying, 'my friend'. In the context it's patronizing.
When did John McCain start posting here?
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
Our troops aren't dying for nothing....they're dying for big oil. Iraq and Iran both have huge supplies of oil. To remain an empire, the US must still be relevant, to do this, it needs... OIL!
We deposed a "tyrant" that not only didn't have WMD's.. but he had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Everyone seems to say "at least we killed a bad person"... uhh yeah so? We did and because of that hundreds of thousands have died.
So wait, we went to Iraq to take out a dictator... because of how he treats his citizens. In doing so, we destabilize their entire economy, turn their country into a warzone, kill thousands of their civilians, and set up private bases so we have a presensce there. We have become the new dictator.. and a pretty crappy one as well.
Personally, I don't care about Saddam. He's a SCAPEGOAT, just like Osama bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden the supposed mastermind behind 9/11, still assumed to be allive... and we have people saying "Well at least we killed Saddam"... you people are nuts. Are you really that easily fooled?
Iraq didn't even attack us, we lead a pre-emptive strike, took over everything... then act as if we are liberating them. Did you know that the entire televised scene where the Saddam statue is being pulled down.. was basically a photo op set up by US forces ? Apparently the crowd had to be told to pull down the statue...
Also it's a funny thing, how every single attack in Iraq seems to come from the mysterious "Al Qaeda" group. Reading the governments own statistics, only 12% of insurgent groups in Iraq are in "Al Qaeda". So does this mean that everytime we kill someone, we say they are in Al Qaeda, just to soften the blow?
"Hey, we didn't get Osama, but hey at least they were in Al Qaeda".
On the subject of torture.
IF you think torture should be used to coerce people. You deserve to be tortured! It's a very simple idea! If the only way you can get information is putting someone in an agonizing near-death state... then you probably are really bad at your job.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
The "Scott" person that posted, that was hilarious.
Must have been a sarcastic post as I didn't see an argument from him explaining how I was wrong :-/
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Snowspot,
quote:Our troops aren't dying for nothing....they're dying for big oil. Iraq and Iran both have huge supplies of oil. To remain an empire, the US must still be relevant, to do this, it needs... OIL!
The United States is not an empire. And please, don't insist I "provide evidence", you have offered none yourself beyond your own rhetoric.
quote:We deposed a "tyrant" that not only didn't have WMD's.. but he had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Everyone seems to say "at least we killed a bad person"... uhh yeah so? We did and because of that hundreds of thousands have died.
Why the scare quotes? He wasn't a tyrant? Not 'everyone' says that. And just because he had nothing to do with 9/11 is no reason he wasn't our enemy.
Too many people have died, yes.
quote:We have become the new dictator.. and a pretty crappy one as well.
Oh? Remind me, what was that thing they did awhile ago? Starts with an 'e', rhymes with 'confection'? Whatever else you can say, the United States is not the dictator if Iraq.
quote:Personally, I don't care about Saddam. He's a SCAPEGOAT, just like Osama bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden the supposed mastermind behind 9/11, still assumed to be allive... and we have people saying "Well at least we killed Saddam"... you people are nuts. Are you really that easily fooled?
Who says, "At least we killed Saddam"? I literally cannot remember hearing anyone ever saying that. It's easy for you to argue when you get to stuff words in people's mouths.
quote:Also it's a funny thing, how every single attack in Iraq seems to come from the mysterious "Al Qaeda" group. Reading the governments own statistics, only 12% of insurgent groups in Iraq are in "Al Qaeda". So does this mean that everytime we kill someone, we say they are in Al Qaeda, just to soften the blow?
We don't say that every attack comes from Al Qaeda. Clearly you don't even listen to what your opponents say, if you're going to tell such an obvious and stupid lie.
quote:IF you think torture should be used to coerce people. You deserve to be tortured! It's a very simple idea! If the only way you can get information is putting someone in an agonizing near-death state... then you probably are really bad at your job.
Ahh, OK. So what's your alternative, then? Offer one. Let's assume everything else you said is right (an assumption of massive proportions). How do you think we should get information from prisoners?
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
This poster above me is very ignorant, please don't listen to his line of thinking. He has no answers, he's just trying to divide people... and with nothing, no proof, no facts, no real alternative viewpoint besides "oh yeah? How come? I don't think so!"
1. America is an Empire. If you don't know that you don't know what an Empire is. DUHHHH
2. Saddam Hussein was our enemy but not a threat whatsoever to us, the same as most of the middle east is not a threat. They can't launch a full-scale invasion against us. There is an entire ocean between us, if anything, they could pull of a few 9/11 style attacks... can they bring nukes here? No. Could they do the damage we've done to Iraq? Not even close. What are people so terrified of? The boogie man? Please, the bad man with a turban is coming (lol). Terror isn't going to stop just because we want it to, in fact, we're causing terror by pissing so many people off.
3. Anything that has to do with Iraq's government has to do with the US. You are stupid. How can you not see that anything that happens there is done by the hand of the US? We have Hundreds of thousands of troops there and we are also paying hundreds of thousands of blackwater mercenaries.
So not only are we fighting with our army... we're paying mercenaries MORE. We are also hiring mercenaries because they don't have to abide by US laws, how quaint and wholesome, like America.
4. YOU can't remember hearing it but from your response to my post, you don't seem to absorb much of anything. How can anyone listen to you when this is how you think about the president? When you obviously have done no research? You're sorely prepared for a debate about this.
Oh and also, in response to "I've never heard anyone say that, EVER", someone in the same thread did... I responded to them saying that. Lol!
5. I'm not sure who "we" is anymore... but yes the US media labels almost every attack on US troops as an Al Qaeda attack, go watch CNN or Fox news or any mainstream news network and you can see this. Every attack seems to be by "al qeada operatives".
6. This response confirmed my belief that this whole post wasn't worth responding to *sigh*. Anyone that says we should torture people... probably doesn't run on all cylinders. First of all, it's against human rights, no one should be tortured, you're a sick **** if you want people tortured. Second, ABU GHRAIB YOU IDIOT. Third, people will be tortured that didn't do anything, people will also be tortured for fun, because the system is easily corruptible. It's funny, how many arrests have we had from guantanamo? How many years has it been there? Are you comfortable with the US having concentration camps?
Welcome to 2008, where it doesn't matter if we torture people in America. IT doesn't matter if they can arrest and detain you indefinitely without charges.
It's because of people like the previous poster that we've gotten to this point. I'm sure he listens to everything he's told, like a good boy Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Snowspot,
In my opinion you're a troll. It's either deliberate, as in you're just spouting off to annoy people, or just because your politics are shallow and narrow.
Enjoy your trolling! I hope you will garner no further responses until you improve your dialogue and listening skills. It's clear at the moment that you're not listening, and not making a genuine effort to converse with anyone who doesn't immediately agree entirely with you. You'll get no further response from me, anyway. Go ahead and count that as a victory, if you like.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom, I'm not a proponent of the death penalty. But Sadaam was responsible for killing more than 500k of his own people during his 24 year reign there. This is a number that is not (as far as I know) disputed.
As far as I can see, as a complete outsider who only knows the numbers and the history, the Iraqi people and justice were served by his death. I never suffered under him; I didn't have my ears cut off because I dared to listen to 'seditious Western lies.'
Usually, I'm not certain that justice is served by the death of the convicted. This time, I'm a believer.
Also, I'm never sarcastic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Part of my point, Scott, is that justice is not served when someone who is directly responsible for five hundred thousand deaths is killed himself. There's no standard of justice out there that demands an eye for half a million eyes. I suspect that, in the case of Saddam Hussein, justice could never be served and will never be served.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The U.S. doesn't exactly have a marvelous history as far as interventions just to stop leaders from killing massive numbers of their own people. At this point, Hussein's death is something of a booby prize.
I kind of agree with what Tom says regarding Hussein and justice. But I think that it underscores another point; to act justly with regard to Iraq requires a good deal more than just deposing a dictator.
I don't feel our current tack is bringing justice to Iraq. I wish I had a magic bullet answer for that, but a mishmash of concrete walls and armed militia groups isn't it. After years of tyranny and deprivation, and an occupation marked by corruption and failed reconstruction projects, what can bring justice to Iraq? It seems as though the ultimate result of the current road is going to be that there's no one left without blood on their hands for us to want to bring justice to, no wronged victim who has not played a role in wronging others.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:This man is not an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing.
I have now talked with two people who have personally spent time with GW; one works for the Pakistan government and the second, a family friend of the Bush's, recently had dinner with the family. Both would completely deny this statement.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Part of my point, Scott, is that justice is not served when someone who is directly responsible for five hundred thousand deaths is killed himself. There's no standard of justice out there that demands an eye for half a million eyes. I suspect that, in the case of Saddam Hussein, justice could never be served and will never be served.
I think this is an excellent point that I'm going to have to disagree with. I believe justice was served in Sadaam's state-sponsored death; I also believe that justice hasn't been satisfied.
There may never be a way to satisfy or compensate for all the harm Sadaam accomplished. I think you're right to point out that killing him doesn't balance things, or put things right completely.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by LadyDove:
quote:This man is not an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing.
I have now talked with two people who have personally spent time with GW; one works for the Pakistan government and the second, a family friend of the Bush's, recently had dinner with the family. Both would completely deny this statement.
That depresses me. I wanted that to be an act. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think this is an excellent point that I'm going to have to disagree with. I believe justice was served in Sadaam's state-sponsored death; I also believe that justice hasn't been satisfied.
Very well put.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
You guys make me laugh.
"Yes, we deposed a tyrant"
Uhhhh and look at the messed up situation that got us into. There's no doubt he was a despicable person and probably should have died... but this is what happens when emotions become more important than procedure.
Sure, we deposed a tyrant but now 3000+ troops dead (+15,000 post iraq war vet suicides that are not added to the tally), over a million dead civilians in Iraq, millions displaced, and the American economy is heading to recession because our budget deficit has skyrocketed during the war. This not not even mentioning all the signing statements and new laws shoved through congress in the last 5 years that are intended to help the government spy on Americans.
The media has done a wonderful job on a few of you
I mean... you do realize every death in Iraq was because of Bush's unconstitutional decision to invade the country? right? All just to kill Saddam and get oil, they also tried to imply it was connected to 9/11 too, so people would be more apt to agree(it worked pretty well!). Heck, it also works calling someone unAmerican or saying they want to "cut and run".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Snowspot, your casual (and uninformed) disdain does little to recommend your argument.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
I'm not a troll, just passionate. I love the ender's saga and lost boys, I came here mostly to read the book forums, I just don't want to spoil things cause I'm only on book 7 in the ender's saga.
I was pretty sure I would be called a troll, mostly because my argument is the correct one, you are wrong and will find out in due time. *sigh* I don't really go on literature forums much but I expected more discussion and open thought here, I know it sounds weird to just blantantly say you're wrong... but you haven't really provided evidence to the contrary.
If anyone would like to ACTUALLY debate what I've said, instead of calling me a troll, let me know. You two have gotten so into saying I'm wrong or calling me a troll... that you didn't even respond to the content of my post. You guys are silly. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Barack's adherence to the idea of troop withdrawal is about the only thing left that makes me wince at the idea of him being president. All of the other things I disagree with him about are... well, not small, but I think that the healing he represents is worth more at this point in our country's existence than the possibility of restricting abortion rights.
Barack puts withdrawal from Iraq as his first topic when he advertises. I just don't think it's going to be as easy as he seems to think it will be. I think that it may even be necessary to establish a permanent American military base on Iraqi soil.
These are not things that the US public probably wants to hear. But I think it's necessary that we consider them. I don't want us pulling out of Iraq only to watch the government be retaken by scoundrels or jihaddists. Yes-- this might be imperialism. We are definitely sticking our whole hand into Iraq's sovereignty pie.
Nontheless-- despite my misgivings about this and other issues, Barack's still my man. National healing is more important, I think, than staying in Iraq.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Our troops aren't dying for nothing....they're dying for big oil. Iraq and Iran both have huge supplies of oil. To remain an empire, the US must still be relevant, to do this, it needs... OIL!
The United States is not an empire. And please, don't insist I "provide evidence", you have offered none yourself beyond your own rhetoric.
It depends on how you define an empire. We have a military prescence in 30 or 40 other countries and have significant economic and political influence over even more. I would say that qualifies us as an empire.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:IF you think torture should be used to coerce people. You deserve to be tortured! It's a very simple idea! If the only way you can get information is putting someone in an agonizing near-death state... then you probably are really bad at your job.
Ahh, OK. So what's your alternative, then? Offer one. Let's assume everything else you said is right (an assumption of massive proportions). How do you think we should get information from prisoners?
He only needs to offer an alternative if torture can be shown to produce reliable information and can be shown to be ethically acceptable by common societal standards. So far it has not on either count. There are many documented cases where reliable information has been produced but there have also been many cases where totally unreliable information has been produced. Even worse, torture can lead to false confessions.
There is some evidence that treating prisoners humanely can actually produce reliable information. I had a good link with examples from WWII where guards actively interacted with and socialized with prisoners and were able to get information (I can't find it atm but can try to dig it up if you are interested). Theoretically that should work because it's a lot more difficult to hold a person in spite once you get to know them (provided they treat you nicely).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:the American economy is heading to recession because our budget deficit has skyrocketed during the war.
The two events coincide, but I'm not sure that the deficit is causative of recession.
A number of factors go into the recession-- it's simplistic to assert that the deficit is the only one. (For example-- overseas migration of jobs, the mortgage market's woes, rising price of oil accompanied by an increase/static demand;) There's a lot there-- and remember, the economy was starting to tumble even before 9/11.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Snowspot, your casual (and uninformed) disdain does little to recommend your argument. (emphasis mine)
QFT.
------
quote:Barack's adherence to the idea of troop withdrawal is about the only thing left that makes me wince at the idea of him being president. All of the other things I disagree with him about are... well, not small, but I think that the healing he represents is worth more at this point in our country's existence than the possibility of restricting abortion rights.
Barack puts withdrawal from Iraq as his first topic when he advertises. I just don't think it's going to be as easy as he seems to think it will be. I think that it may even be necessary to establish a permanent American military base on Iraqi soil.
Agreed. However, I have heard (I think it was on NPR) that he is not quite as immediately committed to massive immediate withdrawls as he once was. I haven't looked into it yet, perhaps someone can help out, but I remember a slew of questions asked of the Democratic candidates on that topic, and I liked his answer.
------------
Threads,
quote:It depends on how you define an empire. We have a military prescence in 30 or 40 other countries and have significant economic and political influence over even more. I would say that qualifies us as an empire.
It's insufficient to simply state we have such an international military presence. Context is important. You also need to ask, "How many of those countries want us out immediately?" The answer may surprise you.
Substantial political and economic influence do not an empire make. I seem to recall an awful lot of people in our 'empire' not going along with our plans for Iraq for all this talk of empire to have any real weight.
Seriously. Empires do not influence, they command. Unless we're just going to slide the definition over a few degrees to get the same connotative oomph for a different thing altogether.
quote:He only needs to offer an alternative if torture can be shown to produce reliable information and can be shown to be ethically acceptable by common societal standards. So far it has not on either count. There are many documented cases where reliable information has been produced but there have also been many cases where totally unreliable information has been produced. Even worse, torture can lead to false confessions.
All of that applies, to an even greater degree, to your make-nice approach to interrogation. And let's be clear, the comparison between WWII and the current so-called 'War on Terror' is murky at best. German, Japanese, and Italian soldiers did not have nearly the ideological foundation to resist making friends with Americans as do the current 'residents' down in Cuba.
And no, he needs to offer an alternative because (for better or worse) right now, torture is one of the tools in our interrogative toolbox. If he's going to take one away, he should explain why the other tools are just as good, not go into a childish rant about how anyone who dares disagree is an idiot who deserves to be tortured themselves.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
Um, it's written in the constitution that you can't torture people. Your toolbox is from the movie Saw. It disturbs me.
I did say people that believe torture should be used should be tortured. If only to show them how much torture hurts... cause then they wouldn't allow it to be done to people.
I'm sure everyone that hasn't been tortured is all for torture, seems to fall along the same lines for the death penalty! Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
When you allow your country to use torture as a technique, you allow EVERY country to torture.
Ok I'm done!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snowspot: Um, it's written in the constitution that you can't torture people
The eighth amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments. By my (liberal) reading, yes, torture is prohibited by the United States constitution.
What's debatable is what torture consists of. It can be a very dangerous thing to give further definition to the terms 'cruel and unusual punishments'-- because then it's implied that whatever is NOT prohibited is allowable.
Thus, the flap over waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and restricted bathroom visits.
quote:I'm sure everyone that hasn't been tortured is all for torture, seems to fall along the same lines for the death penalty!
You know, you haven't been on the site long enough for me to be able to tell if you're serious or not. If you want people to address the topic you're discussing rather than your behavior, you need to be a bit more sincere and a lot less insulting.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Um, it's written in the constitution that you can't torture people.
No it isn't. It can be interpreted that way (and as a matter of fact, I do interpret it that way), and it is debateable whether or not the Constitution applies only to US citizens or not.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It depends on how you define an empire. We have a military prescence in 30 or 40 other countries and have significant economic and political influence over even more. I would say that qualifies us as an empire.
It's insufficient to simply state we have such an international military presence. Context is important. You also need to ask, "How many of those countries want us out immediately?" The answer may surprise you.
Substantial political and economic influence do not an empire make. I seem to recall an awful lot of people in our 'empire' not going along with our plans for Iraq for all this talk of empire to have any real weight.
Seriously. Empires do not influence, they command. Unless we're just going to slide the definition over a few degrees to get the same connotative oomph for a different thing altogether.
How about "imperialist" instead?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: All of that applies, to an even greater degree, to your make-nice approach to interrogation.
"Greater degree" of what? I have seen no real studies on the "make-nice approach" in the first place so I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that it is less effective than torture.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Um, it's written in the constitution that you can't torture people.
No it isn't. It can be interpreted that way (and as a matter of fact, I do interpret it that way), and it is debateable whether or not the Constitution applies only to US citizens or not.
Are you Alberto Gonzalez? Haha.. what a joke. You're talking semantics!?! So what if they aren't a US citizen? Whats if you're in a different country and they will torture you because you aren't their citizen? Do you have no foresight? You should be ashamed. Ashamed. People used to look at America and think we were the good guys, people willing to subvert their values and morals because of their irrational fear cowards. You ARE A COWARD. You know why Saddam Hussein killed so many people? He was AFRAID. He Feared his citizens and the only way to combat that was terrorizing them. It's the same approach you're advocating.
Torture has also been proven to not be effective in finding actual facts. Most people lie and make up what they think the interrogator wants to hear. Would you know that? No, like I said way earlier, it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: There are many documented cases where reliable information has been produced but there have also been many cases where totally unreliable information has been produced. Even worse, torture can lead to false confessions.
We must not forget that, in our own history, torture has led to the admission of people to being witches and having enchanted others with their powers.
This fact, while anecdotal, certainly doesn't speak to the reliability of torture in acquiring accurate information.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
"People used to look at America and think we were the good guys, not the people willing to subvert their values and morals because of their irrational fear"
that's what was supposed to be there, I dunno what happened, lol.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are you Alberto Gonzalez? Haha.. what a joke. You're talking semantics!?! So what if they aren't a US citizen?
I don't think you need to be the Attorney General to acknowledge that certain rights accorded to our citizens under the Constitution are in fact guaranteed only for our citizens.
quote:He Feared his citizens and the only way to combat that was terrorizing them. It's the same approach you're advocating.
You're missing two key points, here, which I think is why you're coming off like a lunatic:
1) Rakeesh has not actually advocated torture. 2) Even if he were, advocating the torture of foreign hostiles is not in fact the "same approach" that Saddam used in Iraq.
Snow, you're acting on the assumption that the people here are idiots. That's unfortunate, because it means you're arguing from a position of streamlined and distilled arrogance that sadly makes you look incredibly, awesomely unintelligent.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snowspot:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Um, it's written in the constitution that you can't torture people.
No it isn't. It can be interpreted that way (and as a matter of fact, I do interpret it that way), and it is debateable whether or not the Constitution applies only to US citizens or not.
Are you Alberto Gonzalez? Haha.. what a joke. You're talking semantics!?! So what if they aren't a US citizen? Whats if you're in a different country and they will torture you because you aren't their citizen? Do you have no foresight? You should be ashamed. Ashamed. People used to look at America and think we were the good guys, people willing to subvert their values and morals because of their irrational fear cowards. You ARE A COWARD. You know why Saddam Hussein killed so many people? He was AFRAID. He Feared his citizens and the only way to combat that was terrorizing them. It's the same approach you're advocating.
Rakeesh made it clear that he believes that torture is unconstitutional. He was just pointing out that it is not an objective fact.
quote:Originally posted by Snowspot: Torture has also been proven to not be effective in finding actual facts. Most people lie and make up what they think the interrogator wants to hear. Would you know that? No, like I said way earlier, it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about.
Whistled. And not just because of that comment. Your attitude in general is very negative and you have made many personal attacks against Rakeesh.
[ February 04, 2008, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And let's be clear, the comparison between WWII and the current so-called 'War on Terror' is murky at best. German, Japanese, and Italian soldiers did not have nearly the ideological foundation to resist making friends with Americans as do the current 'residents' down in Cuba.
But have we even tried? I can't say with certainty that we haven't because there is virtually no transparency in our intelligence system, but I won't buy the "its a different type of enemy" argument until it is demonstrated to be valid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But have we even tried? I can't say with certainty that we haven't because there is virtually no transparency in our intelligence system, but I won't buy the "its a different type of enemy" argument until it is demonstrated to be valid.
If we're going to think like that, I can just as easily say that as far as we know, the interrogations down in Guantanamo Bay work spectacularly well, seeing as how we lack transparency. Let's not go down that road, it's fruitless.
As for not buying the argument, I'm not saying it would never work, I just (correctly) pointed out major differences between modern enemies and WWII nation-state soldier enemies. For example, how many German soldiers do you imagine spent years in religious schools instructing them that not only was it correct to hate America and Americans on secular grounds, but also on religious grounds as well?
It's strange to me that you expect the same approach to work on two groups with such wildly different perspectives, or at least hint that it would work just as well.
And anyway, if you've seen no great studies on the approach you describe, why do you want to try it? Because it would make you feel good? Honest question there. It's all well and good to insist that we deal with people all white-hatted and everything, but what you describe would have us treating the prisoners we're talking about better than domestic criminals.
How does that wash? And anyway, how is that not just a mean trick to lull them into our confidence?
quote:How about "imperialist" instead?
Setting aside Iraq (Afghanistan doesn't count, since activities there enjoy a much greater degree of international support), in what way is the United States imperialist?
How, exactly, do we extend our rule over foreign nations? And don't say 'economic pressure', because that is a two-way street, and everyone drives on it.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If we're going to think like that, I can just as easily say that as far as we know, the interrogations down in Guantanamo Bay work spectacularly well, seeing as how we lack transparency. Let's not go down that road, it's fruitless.
I don't understand your objection. If our government had tried a real policy of non-violent interrogation and it failed then I would expect them to use that as an argument in favor of torture. I don't see that being done so I doubt that they have really tried. However, due to the fact that our government rarely reveals anything about it's intelligence programs, I don't know for sure. I don't see how that connects with "I can just as easily say that as far as we know, the interrogations down in Guantanamo Bay work spectacularly well."
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And anyway, if you've seen no great studies on the approach you describe, why do you want to try it? Because it would make you feel good?
Maybe because I feel that we should try ethical approaches before resorting to ethically-questionable (unethical by any common modern standard) practices.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How does that wash? And anyway, how is that not just a mean trick to lull them into our confidence?
This isn't mind control. I don't see how showing an enemy that we can be human is a "mean trick."
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:How about "imperialist" instead?
Setting aside Iraq (Afghanistan doesn't count, since activities there enjoy a much greater degree of international support), in what way is the United States imperialist?
How, exactly, do we extend our rule over foreign nations? And don't say 'economic pressure', because that is a two-way street, and everyone drives on it.
There are literally tons of examples (proxy wars, manipulated foreign elections, etc.). Here's a list of the countries that we have bombed since 1980: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and Yemen. How many of those countries attacked us first?
Also, economic pressure is a perfectly valid point when it is biased heavily towards one side. For example, recently Egypt opened its borders to Palestine to provide food and medicine to its citizens during Israel's blockade of Gaza but then closed them after the U.S suspended 100 million dollars of aid.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
"How, exactly, do we extend our rule over foreign nations?"
Rakeesh, the thing is that American imperialism is on a stage of decay, so contemporary examples will be fewer than they'd be if I'm allowed to use e.g. examples from the 1980s and earlier back. It says anything to you, how you financed the Contras? How you supported dictatorships all over Latin America?
"And don't say 'economic pressure', because that is a two-way street, and everyone drives on it."
One of the chief example of Russian imperialism nowadays is the economic pressure it's exerting on its neighbours' politics via the gas pipes. The chief example of Greek imperialism in the 1990s was the embargo it imposed on the Republic of Macedonia.
So, frankly, *no*, you can't have it your way and just take one of the primary tools of imperialism out of the equation. Sure, it's a tool that *every* imperialist uses when it's more convenient that military strength. So what?
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
Whistle me all you want, that won't change anything I say. All I said is he doesn't know what he's talking about... which you (anonymous), seem to have proven yourself.
lol @ whistling (?!)
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
oops don't know why anonymous is there, too much surfing digg.com , I meant threads.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snowspot: lol @ whistling (?!)
You must be new here.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Come on Snow. Stop with the grade school insults. You will find that most on this board are intelligent people who are able to discuss, with respect, the events of the day.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snowspot: Whistle me all you want, that won't change anything I say. All I said is he doesn't know what he's talking about... which you (anonymous), seem to have proven yourself.
lol @ whistling (?!)
No actually you said
quote:Are you Alberto Gonzalez? Haha.. what a joke. You're talking semantics!?! So what if they aren't a US citizen? Whats if you're in a different country and they will torture you because you aren't their citizen? Do you have no foresight? You should be ashamed. Ashamed. People used to look at America and think we were the good guys, people willing to subvert their values and morals because of their irrational fear cowards. You ARE A COWARD. You know why Saddam Hussein killed so many people? He was AFRAID. He Feared his citizens and the only way to combat that was terrorizing them. It's the same approach you're advocating.
I just quoted the wrong passage in my post.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Snowspot, if you're interested in being taken seriously by anyone here, it might be helpful for you to spend a little while reading over some of the debate threads on the Books Food Film and Culture forum (the "other side of the river", so to speak). All places online aren't alike, and approaches to debate that are preferred in one place may not be successful in another place.
In fact, it occurs to me that not taking the time to come to know a place before taking a role in it, failing to respect that place's culture, assuming that one's own perspective is more accurate and one's perception more acute that those of the people native to that culture is exactly the sort of approach that people often identify as "imperialistic" when describing the US's interactions with other countries. Don't be what you despise, eh?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:I don't think you need to be the Attorney General to acknowledge that certain rights accorded to our citizens under the Constitution are in fact guaranteed only for our citizens.
Yes, everyone knows that the Constitution only applies to white male citizens. That's why slavery was constitutional back then, and that's why torturing non-citizens is constitutional now.
Or you may believe as I do, that slavery had always been unconstitutional, and that denying habeas corpus to non-citizens is likewise unconstitutional now.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
"Constitutional" and "right" are not necessarily one and the same.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Aris, are you seriously going to claim that all the rights in the U.S. Constitution are legally extended to non-citizens? Because that's a losing argument.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Snowspot, "whistling" a post indicates bringing it to the attention of a moderator by means of the "report post" icon (which looks like a whistle) at the bottom of each post.
Your posts are a bit over the line in regard to personal attacks. I try to grant a little leniency here and there, especially on more controversial topics and with long-term members (as a consequence of their investment in the community, not just because they've been here longer, and because it's usually the rare exception rather than the rule), but the rules are still there.
Personal attacks on other members aren't acceptable. Argue their points/positions/logic/premises, but don't attack the person, please. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're stupid, or ignorant, or blind, or a coward. Just ease back on the throttle a little bit, ok? Thanks.
--PJ
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Aris, are you seriously going to claim that all the rights in the U.S. Constitution are legally extended to non-citizens? Because that's a losing argument.
All of the rights are not extended. But the right to not be tortured by agents of the US government is extended to non-citizens, by the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, etc.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
Fine fine, I got to harsh I'll admit But still to deny the Geneva Convention and act as if JUST because you are not American, we don't mind torturing you. I just don't know how you can have this logic..
The US doesn't get to break international laws just because we can. Still can't believe some of you endorse torture o_o
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
I laughed at "whistling" because they have that on every message board and it's called a TOS violation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Still can't believe some of you endorse torture...
Who among us do you think has endorsed torture? I don't think you're reading very carefully, Snow.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
Well, I guess it just seemed like people were saying it's ok as long as it's not against American citizens.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Well, I guess it just seemed like people were saying it's ok as long as it's not against American citizens.
Find such a post. Quote me. You'll see I have not edited anything.
You can't do it. I even think you know you can't do it, because now you're adding the qualifier 'seemed like'.
Well, you were wrong. Will you own up?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: I did say people that believe torture should be used should be tortured. If only to show them how much torture hurts... cause then they wouldn't allow it to be done to people
This is perfect logic. And people who are abused children NEVER wind up being abusive parents themselves. Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: We must not forget that, in our own history, torture has led to the admission of people to being witches and having enchanted others with their powers
"...More...Weight...."
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: most of the middle east is not a threat. They can't launch a full-scale invasion against us. There is an entire ocean between us,
Maybe I missed this part, but what branch of the military did you serve in again? Have you ever been 90 yards away from an Iranian Kaman? Do you even know what an Iranian Kaman is? And out of curiosity, concerning that "entire ocean" that is between us, do you think an ocean intrinsically makes the middle east "not a threat", or perhaps is there some other factor at work here that you might be missing?
[ February 05, 2008, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: if anything, they could pull of a few 9/11 style attacks...
How many friends and family members did you lose on 9/11? I mean, to be so flippant about it, you must have some kind of emotional credentials to stand on.
By the way, these are not rhetorical questions, Uncle Dave wants answers.
quote: What are people so terrified of? The boogie man? Please, the bad man with a turban is coming (lol).
Laugh Out Loud? Really? I would venture that Marcus Luttrell would have some choice words for you on that one. Go ahead, Google it, I'll wait...
quote: can they bring nukes here? No.
Your grasp of current nuclear technology and terrorist threats is appalling.
quote: Terror isn't going to stop just because we want it to,
Finally something we agree on. You are right, terror is NOT going to stop just because we want it to. We MUST take an active role in the destruction of terrorist cells, the punishment of captured terrorists, the cutting off of terror funding, and the protection of our own citizens and our allies and interests, here and abroad.
quote:in fact, we're causing terror by pissing so many people off.
I often blame myself for the actions of psychopathic religious fanatics who have declared that they will convert or kill everyone on earth. Sometimes I also blame myself for the movie Delta Farce, even though I had nothing to do with that eggregious offense either.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Aris, are you seriously going to claim that all the rights in the U.S. Constitution are legally extended to non-citizens?
All of them that don't specifically specify that they are limited to citizens, yes.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Strangely enough, this clause says nothing at all about Habeas Corpus being limited to "citizens".
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: All of that applies, to an even greater degree, to your make-nice approach to interrogation.
Applies? Perhaps. "To a greater degree"? Not a given. And aside from the numerous arguments against torture outside of the strictly intel standpoint (that it damages a country's moral authority, that it gives other countries including enemies carte blanche to treat prisoners inhumanely, and so on), I can't help but point out that generous treatment of a prisoner who has given information that proves inaccurate can be withdrawn; it's much harder to change the nature of your relationship with a prisoner who has undergone torture and given false intel.
quote:it is debateable whether or not the Constitution applies only to US citizens or not.
If we get to thinking that there's a double standard in humane conduct, one that applies to us and one that applies to those not fortunate enough to be born on U.S. soil, then God help us. To do so is as much as to imply that there are two degrees of humanity.
quote:And let's be clear, the comparison between WWII and the current so-called 'War on Terror' is murky at best.
Not that it seems to prevent certain hotheads from enlessly bringing up facile comparisons to Neville Chamberlain.
Nor prevented the U.S. from attempting to use conventional military tactics against an unconventional enemy.
Pardon my digression.
quote: German, Japanese, and Italian soldiers did not have nearly the ideological foundation to resist making friends with Americans as do the current 'residents' down in Cuba. [/QB]
It's difficult to really understand what goes into creating the mindset of an enemy, and there's always holes in an analogy that compares a historical enemy with a modern one. But having seen some of the propoganda of Nazi Germany, and historical accounts of the successes of the kamikazi pilots, I'd hesitate to imply that the fanatacism of our current foes is somehow greater than what has been faced before. It's nearly a given that when someone claims "no one has ever faced something like this before", it's hyperbole.
Snowspot? When you call someone an idiot, ignorant, and so on, you are not inviting them to reasoned discourse. And when you throw around general dismissals like "you make me laugh" and "you guys are silly", whether people have tried to engage your comments reasonably or not, you reinforce the notion that you're not here to talk, but to goad.
If you're here to talk, then welcome; be aware that what you write is not implying this is the case. Passion is understandable, but insulting language makes those who disagree with you angry and those who agree with you wince because they fear their point of view will be associated with your words.
...And if you're not here to talk, please... I'm asking nicely... Leave?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Barack's adherence to the idea of troop withdrawal is about the only thing left that makes me wince at the idea of him being president. All of the other things I disagree with him about are... well, not small, but I think that the healing he represents is worth more at this point in our country's existence than the possibility of restricting abortion rights.
Barack puts withdrawal from Iraq as his first topic when he advertises. I just don't think it's going to be as easy as he seems to think it will be. I think that it may even be necessary to establish a permanent American military base on Iraqi soil.
These are not things that the US public probably wants to hear. But I think it's necessary that we consider them. I don't want us pulling out of Iraq only to watch the government be retaken by scoundrels or jihaddists. Yes-- this might be imperialism. We are definitely sticking our whole hand into Iraq's sovereignty pie.
Nontheless-- despite my misgivings about this and other issues, Barack's still my man. National healing is more important, I think, than staying in Iraq.
I think when either Democrat, Hillary or Obama, get into the White House they're going to come to a compromise position. Republicans for the war seem to be represented by "we'll be there for a 100 years" McCain. On the other side Hillary is saying that withdrawel dates aren't dates for surrender, they're warnings that we won't be there forever and they should get their house in order so long as we're there to hold the front door open for them. A lot of experts, including the Iraq Study Group, said that giving them a due date is one of the best tools we have for nudging them to clean up their act.
If the current regime there can't get it done, they should be replaced. If we can't do that, then why are American taxpayers financing Iraq's civil war?
When Obama gets into office, his focus will be on getting us out as quickly as possible, on holding people accountable. He'll meet with foreign leaders to hammer out deals and with Iraq's government to tell them to hurry up and get it done. Like I've said before, it's carrot and stick. I don't think on day one he'll start drawing down the troops. I think, if a year from now the situation is in the same tenuous hold on stability that we have today (which I'd be surprised to see), then he'll say "Okay, we've got your back, get this done because those troops are leaving in a year."
Maliki will either get it done, or he won't, and then Obama will have to find a way to get out and still protect whatever people we leave behind. But we have way too many problems at home that are outweighing THEIR problem over there.
I'm wondering if Obama might even have some pull with the UN that Bush didn't. Clearly Bush has nearly zero credibility with the rest of the world right now. Obama could come in and say "look, the last guy really messed this up, but I want to do the right thing. But we can't stay forever, so help me, and help Iraq." And some of them might go for it. Doubtful, but maybe. Certainly he'd have a better chance than the current guy.
My only real concern about leaving is the civilian casualties. I wonder how much worse it could get, since under our "protection" hundreds of thousands have still been killed, and murders and kidnappings are still common place even post surge. But I worry about the descent into an all out civil war that might claim more of their lives. I'd like to see perhaps a small force of ground troops, an armored regiment or two, a few cav regiments for quick strike capability, and an air wing to stick around to make sure there aren't any wholesale slaughters. They'd be there for humanitarian purposes, and to give the Iranians some pause about just unapologetically spilling across the border. The Fifth Fleet is still based in Bahrain, so, they'd be there for backup too.
I hate to say it, but, I think Obama and Clinton both know that. I think they both know that troops will remain in theater for a few years, and that there's no way they'll all be out before their first term is up. Especially Hillary knows that, being on the armed services committee. She has a lot of defense experience compared to Barack. I think they are saying they we'll be out in a year as pandering to the left and disenchanted voters in the center. And I think you'll notice that unless they are asked, they aren't talking about it very much, no one really is at the moment. It'll become a much bigger issue when the General election comes to town.
I'm not even sure what McCain's position on Iraq is, now that I think about it, other than the fact that he thinks we'll be there until long after I'm dead.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote: if anything, they could pull of a few 9/11 style attacks...
How many friends and family members did you lose on 9/11? I mean, to be so flippant about it, you must have some kind of emotional credentials to stand on.
By the way, these are not rhetorical questions, Uncle Dave wants answers.
The death toll from 9/11 was large but insignificant in the long run (an order of magnitude times smaller than the number of people we lose in car accidents each year). The real problems with 9/11 were the emotional distress and economic problems that it caused.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote: if anything, they could pull of a few 9/11 style attacks...
How many friends and family members did you lose on 9/11? I mean, to be so flippant about it, you must have some kind of emotional credentials to stand on.
By the way, these are not rhetorical questions, Uncle Dave wants answers.
quote: What are people so terrified of? The boogie man? Please, the bad man with a turban is coming (lol).
Laugh Out Loud? Really? I would venture that Marcus Luttrell would have some choice words for you on that one. Go ahead, Google it, I'll wait...
quote: can they bring nukes here? No.
Your grasp of current nuclear technology and terrorist threats is appalling.
quote: Terror isn't going to stop just because we want it to,
Finally something we agree on. You are right, terror is NOT going to stop just because we want it to. We MUST take an active role in the destruction of terrorist cells, the punishment of captured terrorists, the cutting off of terror funding, and the protection of our own citizens and our allies and interests, here and abroad.
quote:in fact, we're causing terror by pissing so many people off.
I often blame myself for the actions of psychopathic religious fanatics who have declared that they will convert or kill everyone on earth. Sometimes I also blame myself for the movie Delta Farce, even though I had nothing to do with that eggregious offense either.
I'll try as best I can to respond to these, it's really hard to respond when you segment your answers a million times
1. How many people do I know who died in 9/11, none. How many Iraqi's do you know? They seem like a faceless group of non-humans to you, you act like US lives are the only ones that matter. Like another poster said, there are not two levels of humanity, if you're appauled by my casual use of '9/11 style' maybe you should think about how many of Iraqi's have died because of your fear?
2. Could you explain your grasp of nuclear technology? IF we are in such a dire situation, how is it that the only attack after 9/11 was anthrax, which actually was found to come from our own department of defense? You do know the anthrax attacks were faked right? Go look at Google, the strains sent to famous americans were the same developed by US government scientists. Why? To make the public afraid enough to pass legislation that would, otherwise, not pass. It worked.. and I can't believe we have people like you still afraid of the communist threat of the atomic bomb o_o
We aren't even fighting an organized military and we have people thinking we're going to be nuked. lmao. I live in NYC, so I of all people should be afraid.. but I can't say I really care. Of course I don't want to die, who does... but its either going to happen or not. Security is never 100%, you'll never always be protected, just get used to it, it's the real world. Think of how it is for the Iraqi's.
He was the only one that survived, he's a great soldier, no doubt about that...
None of those people were in the US, thus we put ourselves in danger even attacking them. One seal survived... and we killed hundreds of people that will be replaced with hundreds more that hate us for killing the earlier group. Maybe we should stop going to places and killing people in their own land? I dunno, where's Osama exactly? Since when did Saddam become more important than him? You want to basically irradicate an entire population because of what they might "think" about doing to Americans. Really disturbing stuff.
People also seem to forget that almost all the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, an "ally" in the region.
4. lol. Yes, terror won't stop. Want to know something else? Terror is a word. It can mean anything that frightens people. Terror is happening all the time! Quick, lets kill everyone! Terror is going to happen!!!! This seems to be the sort of mindset you follow. I'm more afraid of losing my rights than some stranger blowing me up.
I think that's everything
[ February 05, 2008, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Snowspot ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: The death toll from 9/11 was large but insignificant in the long run (an order of magnitude times smaller than the number of people we lose in car accidents each year).
The mind boggles. I don't think you can (or should) separate the deaths from the context.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The mind boggles. I don't think you can (or should) separate the deaths from the context.
It looks to me like he was doing the opposite, that he was putting the deaths in context.
The death toll on 9/11 was terrible. It's terrible whenever anyone dies. But, in the grand scheme of things, it was no where near large enouh to constitute a threat to the country.
Most of the damage to America from 9/11 was done through people's reactions to the event, especially that of the Bush administration. Which, ironically, came about in part because of the hyping of this as a terrible threat to our country.
---
Edit: These are serious issues that should be seen as what they are and not dealt in in simplistic catch-phrases and blind fear.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: The death toll from 9/11 was large but insignificant in the long run (an order of magnitude times smaller than the number of people we lose in car accidents each year).
The mind boggles. I don't think you can (or should) separate the deaths from the context.
I just wanted to point out that there is more to the war than saving American lives. Spending 1 or 2 trillion dollars to save 3000 lives every decade or so would be ridiculously inefficient.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I just wanted to point out that there is more to the war than saving American lives. Spending 1 or 2 trillion dollars to save 3000 lives every decade or so would be ridiculously inefficient.
Are you saying that 3000 lives are not worth 1 or 2 trillion dollars?
Or are you ascribing ulterior (and sinister) motives to the present administration?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It looks to me like he was doing the opposite, that he was putting the deaths in context.
The death toll on 9/11 was terrible. It's terrible whenever anyone dies. But, in the grand scheme of things, it was no where near large enouh to constitute a threat to the country.
3000 people in a nation of...what, 40 million? Isn't a lot. But the context (which was removed by Threads) is what is significant to the issue at hand. The context is what informs opinion that those particular deaths signaled a threat to the country. (Really, the bombing of the Cole should have warned us.)
quote: Most of the damage to America from 9/11 was done through people's reactions to the event, especially that of the Bush administration. Which, ironically, came about in part because of the hyping of this as a terrible threat to our country.
Al-Queda proved itself to be a credible threat to America's safety through their actions on 9/11. Are you saying that Al-Queda isn't (or wasn't) a threat?
I do not see the Bush administration as being a greater threat to America than Al-Queda. (For one thing, I can actually spell "Bush administration." I think I'm spelling Al-Queda wrong. That makes them more evil.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Al-Queda proved itself to be a credible threat to America's safety through their actions on 9/11
No, they didn't. They proved they were a threat to some Americans. They killed what is, when taken in context, a relatively small number of people. And that was their best attack.
Right now, America is in a weaker state than it was prior to the attacks.
Our military is not as strong or as capable of dealing with situations.
Our international reputation and the regard that other countries have for us is much worse.
Domestically, we have acrimonious divisions, we have betrayed our ideals, and we have a great deal of distrust for even basic honesty for our government.
To me, this counts as damage to the country, but it didn't come from the Al Queda attacks.
They killed some people and damaged or destroyed some property. Not great, but it actually increased America's power in that it made the country more unified and raised international regard and desire for cooperation with us.
It was people's reactions, especially that of the Bush administration, that led to the damages I listed above.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [quote]3000 people in a nation of...what, 40 million? Isn't a lot.
~300 million, actually.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Are you saying that 3000 lives are not worth 1 or 2 trillion dollars?
Yes when considering how many more lives could have been potentially saved by investing that money elsewhere (there's no evidence that we even have saved any American lives in the long run).
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Or are you ascribing ulterior (and sinister) motives to the present administration?
No. I'm saying that saving American lives is a poor justification for the war given the enormous cost. Saving Iraqi lives isn't a good justification either given the cost and the fact that hundreds of thousands have already died as a result of our invasion (not always as a direct result of our troops though).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks Noemon.
quote:America is in a weaker state than it was prior to the attacks.
I don't know that this is so. I think, at the least, we're aware of the threat of stateless terrorism.
Can you qualify the term "weak?" With the exception of having some cold shoulders turned toward us on the international stage, I don't see that we ARE "weaker."
quote: Our military is not as strong or as capable of dealing with situations.
I don't know that this is true, either. What do you mean by 'strong' and 'capable' and 'situations?'
The experience gained by soldiers in tours of Afghanistan/Iraq would, I think, make them stronger and more capable in dealing with situations of similar types.
quote: Our international reputation and the regard that other countries have for us is much worse.
All right.
quote: Domestically, we have acrimonious divisions
True. I don't think we're (that is-- the people. Not the media, or public figures) that acrimonious about the war, though.
quote:we have betrayed our ideals
I've heard this before, but I don't buy it. I haven't betrayed my ideals; I may have been fooled into accepting things that I wouldn't normally have accepted if I'd had all the facts. But that's not the same as betraying one's ideals.
quote: and we have a great deal of distrust for even basic honesty for our government.
Well, speak for yourself. I tend to think that Nixon destroyed most of the trust we had in our government's honesty.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The experience gained by soldiers in tours of Afghanistan/Iraq would, I think, make them stronger and more capable in dealing with situations of similar types.
The ones who are in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't available to deal with other situations.
In addition, we've used up our troops - not just the ones who have died or been injured. They're not machines. People have a limited amount of time that they can spend in combat operations. Your three-tour veteran isn't going back to heavy action.
Recruitment (as well as retention) is way down, even though they've been dropping their standards.
A vast amount of material has been used. We've spent enormous amount of money.
---
What was the damage that Al Queda did to America that compares to this and the other things I mentioned, Scott?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are you saying that 3000 lives are not worth 1 or 2 trillion dollars?
I'll say that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Recruitment (as well as retention) is way down, even though they've been dropping their standards.
The above link seems to imply that the Armed Forces are meeting their recruitment and retention goals. I'm not sure what you mean by 'way down.'
quote:The ones who are in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't available to deal with other situations.
This doesn't mean "weaker" necessarily. It implies "busy."
quote:A vast amount of material has been used. We've spent enormous amount of money.
Again, these aren't necessarily things that make us "weaker," or show an indication of damage.
quote:What was the damage that Al Queda did to America that compares to this and the other things I mentioned
I don't think you have a valid point; given that, there's no comparison possible.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Tom's comment got me thinking about a question I read in an article over at overcomingbias.com. The question posed was along the lines of would you pay 1 billion dollars for a 0.000001% chance of saving someone's life? If not (and this is my wording) then how can we claim, as an absolute, that no amount of money is ever worth a human life? Surely there is some point at which you would pay money to have a chance at saving someone's life. The above question establishes an upper bound on that amount.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Are you saying that 3000 lives are not worth 1 or 2 trillion dollars?
Kind of old but things haven't gotten any better, whenever they want to make things look good, they just lower their standards.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Er... according to the article I linked, things HAVE definitely, quantitatively, gotten "better."
EDIT: "Better" being defined as 'reaching established goals.' For that matter, recruiting goals didn't change that much from 2005 to 2006-- but the armed forces met those goals despite a shortfall from the year before.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Maybe the recruitment goals were met, but at the cost of lowered standards involving criminal records, gang affiliation, education, etc. I just saw a report on crime where police officers were complaining that gangs were using military tactics and weapons, due to training gang members received in the US military.
As far as retention goals, they can't be compared to previous years because of stop-loss and similar programs that really make a mockery of the concept of the volunteer army.
Also, the $1-2 trillion dollars is in response to losing 3000 lives, not to save them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I just saw a report on crime where police officers were complaining that gangs were using military tactics and weapons, due to training gang members received in the US military.
I wonder how widespread this practice is. Do you have any links to this information, Morbo?
quote:Maybe the recruitment goals were met, but at the cost of lowered standards involving criminal records, gang affiliation, education, etc.
Morbo, here is a link (with numbers) that kind of offsets your opinion:
You seem to imply that the 6k+ deficit was made up entirely by hoodlums. Maybe I'm reading you wrong. In any case, that's not nearly correct according to the linked article.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Sorry, I don't have a link. It was a recent documentary on gangs on cable, A&E or Bravo.
According to your link, to make recruiting quotas the Army almost doubled the number of low-aptitude recruits (according to a test). And increased the number of waivers for moral reasons (crimes).
Isn't that what I said? Aside from my mention of gangs, which my recollection is went from a policy of no active gang members to some allowed.
edit: I see I mentioned education earlier instead of aptitude.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Here's the section that refutes your assertion, Morbo:
quote:About 17 percent of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.
Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for “moral” reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7 percent were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs.
The Army said the waiver process recognizes that people can overcome past mistakes and become law abiding citizens.
Additionally, the new lowered standards were just implemented this past year (2006). If I understand the way things work, you go to basic for 6 weeks; then you are on active duty for at least two years.
Given that information, your assertion that gang members are sliding in under the Army's new lowered standards and then coming out to train their peeps doesn't quite jive. There hasn't been enough time yet for you to credibly make this assertion.
NOW-- it's certainly possible that gang members are using training they received from the Army-- but chances are they weren't recruited under the new lower standards.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why?
Because that same trillion dollars could be used to save/improve far more than 3,000 lives. If we had nothing else to spend a trillion dollars on, perhaps the equation would be different.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I disagree that the standards were lowered in 2006. Here's an article dating back to 2006 about lowered standards. A quote about gangs using military tactics and weapons:
quote: Last month, the Sun-Times reported that a gang member facing federal charges of murder and robbery enlisted in the Marine Corps "while he was free on bond -- and was preparing to ship out to boot camp when Marine officials recently discovered he was under indictment." While this recruit was eventually booted from the Corps, a Milwaukee police detective and Army veteran, who serves on the federal drug and gang task force that arrested the would-be Marine, noted that other "gang-bangers are going over to Iraq and sending weapons back ... gang members are getting access to military training and weapons."
It's possible that increased interest among gangs (including Aryan nation skinheads) is more important to this disturbing trend than lowered standards. Gang members try to hide their gang membership to get in and stay in the Army. But they can't hide their arrest record, which is where the waiver policies help them.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
The following videos CREATED my perspective on the topic of "The value of human life". They have quite literally changed my view of the world. The beauty of them is that they are based on irrefutable mathematics. These are not opinions. The information itself is not particularly open for debate. The effects are subject only to speculation, as they are unavoidable.
Linked below are parts 1, 2, and 3 of an 8 part video of a mathematical presentation by one Dr. Bartlett. The video is a basic outline of the effects of Exponential Growth on the population, and on resources. Part 1 starts off a bit slow, but please realize that he's merely putting the subject into context. I only link the first 3 parts as they are the most related to the subject at hand. The remaining 5 are equally interesting, but are not as relevant. If you make it through these, then you will be smarter for it.
That the army is coming close to meeting recruitment goals has to do with lowering standards, and offering ridiculous sums of money to keep people in and to get new ones. I've read at least a dozen stories in the last six months about how commanders in the war are worried about losing experience sargeants, whose experience in running units is critical. They're leaving in droves.
To cover some of the issues at hand, let me just ask Scott: Say I bite and say that yes, Al Qaeda was a threat...how does that follow that we should attack Iraq? Al Qaeda was not in collusion with Saddam, in fact they were largely enemies, because Saddam was far too moderate for Al Qaeda's taste. They were based in Afghanistan, Iran and funded by Saudi Arabia. Well we got one out of three, we docked one of theirs allowance, and perhaps the biggest offender of the three? We just signed a $20 billion arms deal to sell them advanced weapons, and we send them hundreds of billions of dollars for oil. And somehow in there your argument is that attacking Iraq was the best choice? Ridiculous.
I think by most definitions we ARE militarily weaker than before the war started. Equipment has been destroyed and has to be replaced. I don't know how you could spin that as not weaker. We have less vehicles and less planes to mount defenses and attacks. I think by the very nature of the definition, we're weaker because of it. A lot of our troops are battle hardened, but they are also on the way out, and aren't reupping. And the ones that are coming home are coming back with severe mental issues that will take billions of dollars to treat for years to come. And having those troops tied up in Iraq DOES make us weaker. If there is a conflict anywhere else in the world, we are unable to respond to it. If we're attacked at home, we have a National Guard that is tired, undermanned and underequipped to deal with it. It means other nations can act more boldly without fear of any retribution, as right now the only thing we could do would be airstrikes. If that.
3,000 people were killed on September 11th. It was tragic. Our initial response was probably good: Attack Afghanistan, the nation that more than any other openly harbors these guys. Our second response had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The best second move we could have made would've been an international coalition to solve the Israel/Palestine problem. It was the best chance we would have had to do so, and in the face of an attack, to turn from anger to compassion would've been an incredible thing to do. After that we could have run the table in the Middle East.
Instead we're bogged down by debt, with a flailing economy, thousands more dread, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, with a battered army tied up in a quagmire that leading Republicans say could last decades. Even after the surge Iraq is a powder keg, maybe even more so now that we've armed and fed the Sunnis with cash and legitimacy. I really don't get how anyone could argue we're better off now than we were before the war.
That trillion dollars would've been better spent creating a universal healthcare system if you want to look directly at lives saved, or on a dozen other programs that would've fixed domestic problems, or maybe spent on renewable energy so we can stop sending our cash to Saudi Arabia, the guys who actually bred and funded the 9/11 attackers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The experience gained by soldiers in tours of Afghanistan/Iraq would, I think, make them stronger and more capable in dealing with situations of similar types.
The ones who are in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't available to deal with other situations.
Especially those that are severly wounded or dead.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Morbo:
quote:But they can't hide their arrest record, which is where the waiver policies help them.
I don't think that's implied any link I posted. Where are you getting the information that states that the army is allowing known, criminal gang bangers to be recruited?
Lyrhawn:
I don't have a problem with most of what you posted, other than to assert that I'd like to see data on it. Six stories from commanders in Iraq isn't data; recruitment and retaining numbers from the Pentagon is.
Also-- I don't know that solving the Israeli-Palestine conflict would help. I tend to think it would make Israel more secure, but wouldn't do much to take the burr out of Bin Laden's gums.
quote:Instead we're bogged down by debt, with a flailing economy
Like I told Snow above-- there are a lot of factors involved. War's one of them, but perhaps not the preeminent one.
quote: yes, Al Qaeda was a threat...how does that follow that we should attack Iraq?
I never said it did. Did you think I held that position?
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
How could you say war isn't the prominent reason? That's where most of the money has gone.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't have a problem with most of what you posted, other than to assert that I'd like to see data on it. Six stories from commanders in Iraq isn't data; recruitment and retaining numbers from the Pentagon is.
1600 waivers were given to felons last year. And thousands more were given for various "moral" considerations, such as the kind of misdemenors that gang members get caught at.
"Law enforcement officials report that the military is now "allowing more applicants with gang tattoos," the Chicago Sun-Times reports, "because they are under the gun to keep enlistment up." They also note that "gang activity maybe rising among soldiers." The paper was provided with "photos of military buildings and equipment in Iraq that were vandalized with graffiti of gangs based in Chicago, Los Angeles and other cities."
...
"Another type of gang member has also begun to proliferate within the military, evidently thanks to lowered recruitment standards and an increasing tendency of recruiters to look the other way. In July, a study by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, found that because of pressing manpower concerns, "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" are now serving in the military. "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members," said Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator quoted in the report.
The New York Times noted that the neo-Nazi magazine Resistance is actually recruiting for the U.S. military, urging "skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units."
...
Apparently, the recruiting push has worked. Barfield reported that he and other investigators have identified a network of neo-Nazi active-duty Army and Marine personnel spread across five military installations in five states. "They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military," he said.
Little wonder that Aryan Nation graffiti is now apparently competing for space with American inner-city gang graffiti in Iraq."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On AQ, well, I couldn't tell. You seem to be defending the Iraq war in general, and were talking about how AQ was a threat, so, you can see perhaps why I'd make the connection. Thanks for the clarification.
On Palestine - Look at the recruitment literature. It's two things getting people to join up: 1. Iraq. 2. Palestine. If the Palestinians were no longer an opporessed stateless group living in open air prison camps, that takes away a HUGE recruitment tool that Osama could use. Yeah he'd still get people who want to get rid of Israel, but a lot of his support would dry up. It'd also dry up some of the money heading to terrorist groups in the area. And I think it would have earned us personally a LOT of good will, and shown that we aren't just there to help oppress Palestinians.
And I don't necessarily think that the war CAUSED the flailing economy, at least not by itself, but I think if we have an extra couple trillion dollars on hand to fix it, we'd be a lot, lot better off. That trillion dollars could have helped fix our energy problem, created a million jobs and gotten us off Middle East oil. That fixes the economy AND the problem of shipping money to our enemies.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snowspot: How could you say war isn't the prominent reason? That's where most of the money has gone.
What money?
quote:1600 waivers were given to felons last year. And thousands more were given for various "moral" considerations, such as the kind of misdemenors that gang members get caught at.
This was covered in the article I posted. The phrase "misdemenors that gang members get caught at" is misleading. You don't have to be a gang member to get busted for drunk driving.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
The taxpayers money... the only reason we aren't bankrupt is because we are getting loans from foreign nations everyday.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The experience gained by soldiers in tours of Afghanistan/Iraq would, I think, make them stronger and more capable in dealing with situations of similar types.
The ones who are in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't available to deal with other situations.
Especially those that are severly wounded or dead.
Or even the ones that are less than severely wounded. Or the ones that suffer from PTSD. My own limited and admittedly anecdotal experience with those who have served in Iraq is that there are a couple of people in the two most desperately needed fields in Iraq- explosives disarmament and mental health- who were pushed well beyond their ability to cope and have absolutely no interest in spending another second in Iraq if they can possibly avoid it.
It should also be considered that our time in Iraq lends credibility to the idea that a small terror group can stymie a superpower. And that our presence provides a battle lab in which our enemies are learning the tactics by which they can effectively do the same.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It should also be considered that our time in Iraq lends credibility to the idea that a small terror group can stymie a superpower.
In reality, there are a number of terrorist organizations in Iraq that are vying for control of certain regions. Baathists, Sunnis, and Al-Queda fighters have different goals in mind; but their first goal seems to be to keep the rest of Iraq fearful and silent.
quote: And that our presence provides a battle lab in which our enemies are learning the tactics by which they can effectively do the same.
This isn't an argument for leaving. It's an argument for strengthening our forces on the ground so that the enemy doesn't have time to adapt.
quote:The taxpayers money... the only reason we aren't bankrupt is because we are getting loans from foreign nations everyday.
In fact, the Iraqi campaign has been largely funded by loans from other nations. But none of today's taxpayers are seeing that burden; it will fall on us later to pay off the debts.
Thus, your initial statement ("that's where all the money has gone") is a tad misleading.
It's still not a good situation; the assumption of debt for the Iraqi campaign is one of the worst moves the Administration has undertaken. By not allowing the American people to feel the effects of war; by denying us the right to sacrifice in the ways that citizens are supposed to sacrifice; the Administration has pushed the debate of the war into an intellectual argument for most of America.
At the state of the union address given shortly after 9/11, Bush had the opportunity to ask the nation for anything. Instead, he squandered the moment and did not seize on the enormous opportunity to involve the citizenry. If he had, I believe the war with Iraq may never had occurred (because the public would have been much more aware of the conflict, due to a personal connection to it). There would have been a much stronger public push toward international cooperation.
We SHOULD be paying more taxes now to help fund our troops in Iraq. We SHOULD be watching our spending, and conserving gas, and...well, doing all those things that they did in World War II in order to strengthen the effort.
I believe that the invasion of Iraq was misguided. I'm not sure about blatantly unconstitutional; I think that if the Democrats had truly been able to stick that to Bush, they'd have done it already. Whether or not the invasion was correct, keeping our troops there now IS good policy. The Iraqi government is in no position to govern.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
"The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated."
What I don't understand is how bush can be considered a conservative.... he's spent more than all of our presidents combined.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Just curious but:
quote:Whether or not the invasion was correct, keeping our troops there now IS good policy.
For who? And why?
quote:The Iraqi government is in no position to govern.
And what if they are never able to?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:For who? And why?
Well, for the Iraqis who aren't willing (or able) to fight against the people willing to kill them in order to gain political power over their country.
Tactically speaking, it's in America's interest to install a Western-friendly government in Iraq in order to secure a vital resource.
Also, it's a good idea to make a friend in a rough neighborhood.
I don't think that investing in Iraq's future means we must rely wholly on a military solution; I think there should be a surge of managers, trainers, and civilian politicians sent over there to help them make a cultural shift.
quote:And what if they are never able to?
Hm. I guess it depends on what's occurring that is keeping them from governing themselves.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated."
What I don't understand is how bush can be considered a conservative.... he's spent more than all of our presidents combined.
Snow:
That cost isn't being paid right now by the American taxpayer. That was the point of my last post-- it's GOING to be paid; but the average family of four isn't feeling the pinch from the trillions of dollars the Administration has spent/will spend on the war.
The cost of oil HAS gone up due to the war; but that's not the only thing driving the price up.
Again, the economic situation is a lot more complex than just whether or not we're in the middle of a war. It's a factor; it is not necessarily the preeminent one, especially since the current taxpayer is not affected by the amount spent on it.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
Do you have any sources?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
For which bit of information?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Snow...they are loans, which mean they will be paid over time rather than right now. That's the entire point of a loan.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Snow, Scott's right about both the price oil and the loans. The war is being financed almost entirely by deficit spending, which comes from loans from foreign nations.
And the price of oil I think has a lot more to do with drastically increased demand from India, China, and other booming economies, and with new finds and production not being able to keep pace. Even if Iraq got back up to prewar levels of production, the price of oil would continue to rise at a relatively fast rate.
quote:Tactically speaking, it's in America's interest to install a Western-friendly government in Iraq in order to secure a vital resource.
Also, it's a good idea to make a friend in a rough neighborhood.
I don't think that investing in Iraq's future means we must rely wholly on a military solution; I think there should be a surge of managers, trainers, and civilian politicians sent over there to help them make a cultural shift.
No offense but, that's crazy. Sending them help to do it themselves, sure, but more or less forcing a "cultural shift" on them? I'm not even sure what that means. What happens if they don't WANT a western friendly government? We're risking a repeat of Palestine where we said "you need democracy!" so they said, "okay" and elected Hamas into power. Then we said "we're cutting off your funding until you elect someone WE like!"
You're not just proposing nation building, you want to revamp their culture too? That's the worst sin of Empire. I think you could make the argument it's just as bad as the slaughter taking place there. Kill them and then remove their identity. I hope that isn't what you're suggesting, but it's kind of vague, so I'll await your explanation.
quote:Hm. I guess it depends on what's occurring that is keeping them from governing themselves.
That's not an answer, it's a dodge. Whatever the reason is, what if they aren't able to govern? What if they ARE able to govern but not with a Pro-West government? What if we create a Saudi Arabia where the government is Pro-West but the people hate us?
This isn't good policy, it's not even policy, it's wishful thinking.
I should add that, I am not against making friends in the Middle East, the problem is that we have "allies" there. We install unpopular governments and make decisions for people who have no voice, and only give them more reason to hate us. There are better ways to do it. We should oppose oppressive governments and support people, but we can't do that while we're beholden to oil holders. Our money is being misspent, as is our people, our materiel, and our reputation. At the end of this, we'll still be the supporter of tyrants, and we'll still be the one who oppresses people in the Middle East. Good policy would be to stop doing that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You're not just proposing nation building, you want to revamp their culture too? That's the worst sin of Empire. I think you could make the argument it's just as bad as the slaughter taking place there. Kill them and then remove their identity. I hope that isn't what you're suggesting, but it's kind of vague, so I'll await your explanation.
That IS what I'm suggesting. Well, not the 'kill them' bit. But their culture does need to be modified.
I'm not proposing brainwashing anyone. I'm not proposing anything more than showing them a new way of thinking about the world, and rewarding them when that way is successfully and practically applied.
Also, if you don't know what something means, the best thing to do is ask questions until you understand it well enough to feel comfortable in calling it crazy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That's not an answer, it's a dodge. Whatever the reason is, what if they aren't able to govern? What if they ARE able to govern but not with a Pro-West government? What if we create a Saudi Arabia where the government is Pro-West but the people hate us?
This isn't good policy, it's not even policy, it's wishful thinking.
What isn't good policy? What is wishful thinking?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:You're not just proposing nation building, you want to revamp their culture too? That's the worst sin of Empire. I think you could make the argument it's just as bad as the slaughter taking place there. Kill them and then remove their identity. I hope that isn't what you're suggesting, but it's kind of vague, so I'll await your explanation.
That IS what I'm suggesting. Well, not the 'kill them' bit. But their culture does need to be modified.
I'm not proposing brainwashing anyone. I'm not proposing anything more than showing them a new way of thinking about the world, and rewarding them when that way is successfully and practically applied.
Also, if you don't know what something means, the best thing to do is ask questions until you understand it well enough to feel comfortable in calling it crazy.
Well, even if I was wrong about that part specifically, I still think your idea is a bit crazy But unfortunately I was right.
But let me ask you something: How after all these years have we not already introduced this new way of thinking to them? And what reward are we going to give them when they successfully adopt it? Seems to me, once they get it right, we leave, that's really more of a reward for us. They have NO impetus to speed up here. Rewards for making progress would be staying. If they aren't willing to make progress, then we leave. Do you agree?
Regardless, there's something monstrous in removing their culture and supplanting it with our own. It has a white man's burden feel to it, because THAT turned out so well for us.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:How after all these years have we not already introduced this new way of thinking to them?
It's been 5 years. That's not a long time. We occupied Japan for 7 (1945-1952), and that was without having to battle for territory every day, or train a police force, or do any number of things that we're doing now.
quote: there's something monstrous in removing their culture and supplanting it with our own.
I agree. Was someone suggesting this? I missed it-- I hate it when people delete posts...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm an idiot. I meant to edit my post, but hit quote instead.
4 times.
I could not understand why my post kept showing up in boldface...
Apologies. I've...um...deleted my mistaken posts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:That's not an answer, it's a dodge. Whatever the reason is, what if they aren't able to govern? What if they ARE able to govern but not with a Pro-West government? What if we create a Saudi Arabia where the government is Pro-West but the people hate us?
This isn't good policy, it's not even policy, it's wishful thinking.
What isn't good policy? What is wishful thinking?
You still haven't answered the original question. What do we do if the Iraqi government is never in a position to govern?
It's not good policy to blunder into a conflict with no understanding of the nation we're invading. But that part is over, and we move on to the here and now. You've dodged twice when I asked you what we do if they can't govern themselves. So should I assume that, like McCain, you think we should stay for 100 years?
Republicans say it is bad policy to tell "the enemy" that we're giving a "surrender date." I think it's horrible policy to tell the Iraqi government that they can take 100 years to get their house in order. They don't have a hundred years, and we don't have two trillion dollars every five years to fund their temper tantrums. It's good policy to tell them that they'd better get their house in order, and that our patience isn't limitless. We're there to help them, and we will help them, with a massive level of resources, but now that help is tied to progress. When Palestine voted Hamas into power we boycotted them. Unless Iraq makes decisions we like, we do the same. That's pretty much your position anyway, just in a different order.
But from the looks of things, these are groups with centuries old conflicts that were ONLY nice to each other being there was an iron fisted leader in place to keep them in line. Without that lynch pin, it all falls apart. We pulled the pin, and it did fall apart. Your wishful thinking comes from the fact that right now, Iraq controls our future, not the other way around. We're sitting back, not applying any meaningful pressure, hoping that they'll just figure this stuff out all by themselves, but you go a step further, by assuming that when they DO figure it all out, we'll like whatever they come up with. And if we don't like it then...what? Then we tell them the same thing we told Palestine, that we're not REALLY offering them Democracy, we're offering them the opportunity to do it our way or die. And of course WE won't kill them, except, you know, whoever resists us. Instead we'll let them kill each other, for however long it takes to see things our way.
I'll amend what I said before to say that it is bad policy based on wishful thinking. And I just explained why.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What do we do if the Iraqi government is never in a position to govern?
I don't know. It depends on what is keeping them from governing.
quote:you go a step further, by assuming that when they DO figure it all out, we'll like whatever they come up with. And if we don't like it then...what? Then we tell them the same thing we told Palestine, that we're not REALLY offering them Democracy, we're offering them the opportunity to do it our way or die. And of course WE won't kill them, except, you know, whoever resists us. Instead we'll let them kill each other, for however long it takes to see things our way.
You came up with this on your own.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:It's been 5 years. That's not a long time. We occupied Japan for 7 (1945-1952), and that was without having to battle for territory every day, or train a police force, or do any number of things that we're doing now.
Well this is totally subjective, but I think five years IS a long time. And apparently what constitutes showing them a new way to look at the world is subjective too. We've shown them what we want them to do. They don't seem to be taking kindly to it do they? And maybe we should have thought of all that stuff before we attacked them with no plan for all the crap we're having to deal with now. It was supposed to be an in and out mission, now it's the Gilligan's Island of wars.
The difference you're looking for between Japan and Iraq that's relevent is that after they surrendered they accepted our help, everyone there, and they were a unified people. Of course it was simpler. Iraq however hasn't accepted the idea that we've been shoving down their throats for all these years. It's not working.
quote:I agree. Was someone suggesting this? I missed it-- I hate it when people delete posts...
Sassy. I like it.
You want to modify their culture to reflect Pro-West positions and instill in them Western values. Above where I said "kill them and remove their identity" you said "that IS what I'm suggesting" but without the killing part, leaving the remove their identity part. You want to remove their identity apparently, you want to modify their culture. If I'm wrong, explain it. I have a five letter word awaiting your explanation .
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I don't know. It depends on what is keeping them from governing.
*shakes head* Currently it's a dozen different things. They can't agree on a power sharing measure, the government is rife with corruption, several ministries are wholly controlled by Muqtada Al-Sadr, who wasn't elected for anything, and controls a 60,000 man militia. Add to that the fact that they are unable to agree on any of the things we've asked them to do. The bill they passed recently to allow Baathists back into government? Some analysts are saying it could actually make it HARDER for Baathists to get into those positions. A large Sunni bloc walked out of Parliament in August. The Kurds refuse to give up Kirkuk, and they delayed a vote in November on where the city will end up because they knew the vote would likely result in armed conflict.
I'll let you take them one by one.
quote:You came up with this on your own.
Yes I did. Take away the part where I answer my own question and answer it for me. What if they elect a government we don't like and can't work with?
And I'd add that, that's what we did in Palestine, and, that's what we're doing right now. Al-Maliki has no power to force through the changes we want. The government there isn't one that's working for us. So we'll subsidize the status quo, doing nothing to force political change we can get on board with while they kill each other, and the ones we don't like we go kill ourselves. So technically I didn't come up with it. The US government did.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I want to change their culture to allow them to stop killing each other. I want to change their culture so they can govern with equity. I want to change them in ways that will NOT violate their whole ethnic identity, but will allow them to recognize that equality in the public voice and moderation in defense of their identity allows their culture to expand and thrive.
I'm a monster. It's true. The world needs more of me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You explained yourself much more clearly there.
I have no problem with that change. I have a problem with the way it's being done.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Lyrhawn isn't criticizing your ideals. The problem is with how we are implementing them. You say that you want to change their culture so that they can govern with equity. How do you do that? Our current "strategy" for implementing that in Iraq amounts to waiting around until the Iraqi government gets their act together. What are we doing that teaches them equality? What are we doing that will teach them religious tolerance? We have to pay insurgent groups not to attack each other. That doesn't teach them anything.
EDIT: Removed a statement that could only cause trouble.
[ February 07, 2008, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Lyrhawn isn't criticizing your ideals. The problem is with how we are implementing them.
I want to emphasize this.
Your endgame is my endgame. I would love for a free, stable, prosperous, democratically pro-Western Iraq. I'd love it if the whole world was that way, and I'd love to find that Iraq end the way the both of us want it to.
However, I feel that the way we're going about it is not getting us ANY closer to that goal, and we're wasting lives, time, and materiel in the process. I think it's even getting us further from the goal.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
An update.
Waterboarding is now legal.
"WASHINGTON -- The White House said Wednesday that the widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding is legal and that President Bush could authorize the CIA to resume using the simulated-drowning method under extraordinary circumstances.
The surprise assertion from the Bush administration reopened a debate that many in Washington had considered closed. Two laws passed by Congress in recent years -- as well as a Supreme Court ruling on the treatment of detainees -- were widely interpreted to have banned the CIA's use of the extreme interrogation method."
I don't know what this country is going to do, it's really out of control. Bush does WHATEVER he wants ...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just read an article this morning that said the CIA thinks waterboarding may be illegal.
They need to get on the same page.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
THINKS? MAY BE?
It is illegal. Can't everyone see that? You realize the people they are doing this to are humans... right? With husbands and wives and children...
I just can't believe we've gotten to the point where the CIA can decide this, not the American people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Immoral != illegal.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
Thanks for stating the obvious.
I guess you really don't expect much from your country anymore... can't blame you. -----
"Discovery Channel Drops Plans To Air ‘Taxi To The Dark Side’ Because It Is Too ‘Controversial"
Transcript:
GIBNEY: We know that “24″ is a very popular show, and, you know, week after week after week, Jack Bauer would brutally torture people. In fact, we have a couple of clips from “24″ in the film “Taxi to the Dark Side.” Some people seem to get off on that. It’s kind of natural, I suppose, feeling of revenge and retribution for what happened to us on 9/11. Jack Bauer in our names can go and really brutalize the enemies of America.
But I think it is true that some Americans are uncomfortable with the reality of torture, or perhaps, it’d be fair to say, too comfortable with torture without really understanding what it means. I think everyone was horrified by the pictures at Abu Gharib. But there is for some people, I think, a willingness to say, look, let them do what has to be done, so long as it protects us. But as Alberto Mora, former General Counsel for the Navy says in the film, we fight not only to defend our lives, we fight to defend our principles. So it remains to be seen.
I do think that mood is changing, and I do think there are a lot of people who are just furious at what’s been done in our name, and also when they realize how deeply ineffective it is. That’s one thing that people don’t really get. Torture, even though the Bush administration never uses that word, they say “We don’t do torture,” because they define it out of existence. But what you learn about torture — and this administration has authorized torture, there’s no question about it — is torture is deeply ineffective and unreliable.
[ February 09, 2008, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Snowspot ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Thanks for stating the obvious.
It seemed necessary. Your argument appeared to assert its illegality based on its obvious immorality.
I happen to believe that it is also illegal, but not because they're doing it to human beings with families.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well this is a refreshing change of pace.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, you've never seen me assert that something is illegal because it's immoral. You've seen me assert that certain things are unconstitutional without being illegal, which I believe caused you physical pain, but that's not quite the same thing. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You've seen me assert that certain things are unconstitutional without being illegal
Since unconstitutionality is simply a kind of illegality, this is literally impossible.
Nor did I say it was the same thing. Specifically, having someone question your morality for recognizing nuance in a situation is quite simply amusing to me.
It's even more so when it's based on the questioner's clear lack of understanding of what you've been saying.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...You've seen me assert that certain things are unconstitutional without being illegal.
I have to admit, this is a baffling statement to me too, Tom. Examples?
And you have to admit, Snowspot ranting at you for noticing a difference between immorality and illegality is pretty amusing, at least when compared to the discussions you and Dagonee have had. I'm not saying you rant, but I am saying you have often taken Dagonee to task for not looking beyond legal nuance, and here you are criticizing Snowspot for not looking at legal nuance at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I'm not saying you rant
This reminds me: I am not intending to draw any other comparisons between Tom's posts to me that I alluded to and Snowspot's posts in this thread. The worst I could possibly say about Tom's posts in this regard would be dishonest flattery of Snowspot.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: In reality, there are a number of terrorist organizations in Iraq that are vying for control of certain regions. Baathists, Sunnis, and Al-Queda fighters have different goals in mind; but their first goal seems to be to keep the rest of Iraq fearful and silent.
True, sort of. Our current efforts hinge, to a significant extent, on our ability to turn the Sunni groups into an asset, a tactic which may well come back to bite us. The inability to bring the Baathists back into the fold remains a major problem. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda is the group one hears mentioned most frequently, in part because admitting that groups that originate from Iraq are a non-trivial part of the problem is a point of embarassment.
That said, none of these groups individually would be a match for the U.S. military in a conventional fight; indeed, if all three worked together in complete accord, they still wouldn't be a match for the U.S. military in a conventional conflict. That they have succeeded in changing the battleground into one where they can frequently bring down expensive military hardware and highly-trained soldiers with militiamen and improvised explosives is inspiring to those who see America as a real or potential enemy and demoralizing to both American forces and American civilians.
quote:This isn't an argument for leaving. It's an argument for strengthening our forces on the ground so that the enemy doesn't have time to adapt.
It's not remotely that simple. An influx of manpower- notably a temporary, unsustainable influx of manpower- is only a portion of the equation. Extremely gifted people are spending a lot of money coming up with countermeasures for some of the basic tools and tactics used by guerilla groups, and they still encounter enormous problems; the devices used to jam signals for setting off explosives interfering with communications being one example. A conventional military overseas is simply not adaptive in the same way as an insurgent group fighting on familiar territory.
Time and manpower are something the geurilla groups in Iraq appear to have in spades. If a dozen men die finding a tactic that successfully takes out an armored vehicle, that's a large victory for them, and other groups on the ground will be trying variants of that tactic the next day. News of that same tactic has to go up the military chain of command and be analyzed before it can be addressed on an institution-wide level. Arguably, this is a large part of why we're now looking at five years of this business.
The only way that the Iraq operation can be a success- and this is widely acknowledged by the highest ranks- is for the established government to become an independent, self-sustaining body that effectively shares power between the vying factions and is viewed nationally and internationally as a legitimate authority. The government has continued to drag its feet on the steps necessary to make that a reality.
We are punching and kicking incoming waves, hoping that eventually the sand castle behind us will be strong enough to withstand the tide. If the government does not progress, eventually, we will lose.
To my mind, the one real question is: Does the Iraqi government really have the will and wherewithal to achieve a self-sustaining state in the time the U.S. military can buy it?
I think, from either side, that is a completely reasonable question. But after this extended campaign, it's also reasonable to wonder if the answer is 'no', and if so, mightn't the U.S. be better off withdrawing?
[ February 10, 2008, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have to admit, this is a baffling statement to me too, Tom. Examples?
The specific example that springs to mind is the argument that Dag and I had about the whole NSA wiretap thing. I argued that while it might have been technically legal, and while none of the individuals who implemented the wiretaps were necessarily targets of prosecution, Bush's backhanded use of signing statements and his own dismissal of Constitutional intent was best addressed through impeachment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which isn't at all the same as saying that act was unconstitutional.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd be inclined to disagree. But, then, I don't consider "unconstitutional" to necessarily be the same thing as "illegal," so that's probably the problem. I think something can be contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution without being found illegal; that doesn't make it any less unconstitutional, though. That the term "unconstitutional" is something that only the courts get to determine is a claim I explicitly reject. At the end of the day, it boils down to this: I don't regard the Constitution as a legal document, but rather as a set of meta-laws to be used in the creation of legal documents. (I know how idiosyncratic this is, BTW.)
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I have no problem with our government doing whatever is necessary to achieve our goals. Government policy should be (and seems TO be) completely objective. Morality should never come in to the equation. The only reason it IS involved is because so many people are completely brainwashed by those two completely subjective words "Right" and "Wrong" (and their synonyms).
My definition of Morality aside though, there are plenty of reasons why this matter is nothing even CLOSE to Black and White. First off, the people mostly playing the moral card seem to be implying that we're just taking random civilians off the street and torturing them. Somehow I doubt it.
I don't KNOW for sure, but I would wager that the people being subject to torture are people who we would otherwise kill where they stand. After all, that's what you do with your enemy when you're at War. Personally, if I was the enemy and I had a choice between being killed on the spot, or being captured, questioned, and tortured, and MAYBE have a chance to live through it, I certainly wouldn't choose Death. This is doubly the case considering the specific methods being discussed. Comparatively speaking, Waterboarding seems a whole lot better than losing limbs or being burned or cut on etc.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That the term "unconstitutional" is something that only the courts get to determine is a claim I explicitly reject.
Nobody that has a more than superficial knowledge of the Constitution clais that courts are the only determiners of constitutionality.
Moreover, you seemed quite hostile to the idea of other branches making that determination.
quote:I don't regard the Constitution as a legal document, but rather as a set of meta-laws to be used in the creation of legal documents.
Well, the "meta-document" specifically claims to be law:
quote:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Or, in shorter form:
quote:This Constitution . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land
The illegality of unconstitutional acts is the basis for judicial review - something that is perfectly compatible with courts not being the only arbiters of constitutionality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Moreover, you seemed quite hostile to the idea of other branches making that determination.
Not quite. I'm hostile to the recent Executive Branch assertions that certain things are constitutional and thus legal despite specific laws to the contrary. Remember that I'm not a fan of equating constitutionality with legality. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not quite. I'm hostile to the recent Executive Branch assertions that certain things are constitutional and thus legal despite specific laws to the contrary. Remember that I'm not a fan of equating constitutionality with legality
The executive branch has not made that assertion. Tom. It's a quite different assertion being made, and one with qualitative differences.
Moreover, your past posts in this area have gone far beyond the limited statement you make here. You have specifically advocated the idea that the president should enforce an unconstitutional law until it is repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the courts.
You have, in fact, spoken out against the doctrine that the executive consider the constitutionality of particular interpretations of specific laws in deciding which interpretation is correct.
****
I'm actually interested in this discussion, and if you intend to actually participate I'd like to have it.
If, however, you intend to avoid the substance of the discussion - such as the constitution's explicit claim to be law or the methods of interpreting laws so that they can be enforced - I'll simply abandon it now. Please let me know one way or the other.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The executive branch has not made that assertion. Tom. It's a quite different assertion being made, and one with qualitative differences.
In practice, what's the difference?
quote:Moreover, your past posts in this area have gone far beyond the limited statement you make here. You have specifically advocated the idea that the president should enforce an unconstitutional law until it is repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the courts.
Well, more accurately, I said the president should obey a law that he smirkingly called "unconstitutional" until someone other than his hand-picked legal staff offered an opinion. But I recognize that may be too much nuance.
------
Believe it or not, I'm interested in this conversation, too. The problem with having it (broadly), though, is that I am completely convinced of poor faith on the part of the existing executive branch; that absolutely taints any power that I might otherwise concede to it. *grin* Given a) that Congress has no intention of checking the executive and b) the current Supreme Court is sympathetic to broader executive power and c) the existing executive branch is a steaming pile, I'm more than a bit cynical about any interpretation that, in practice, means we should be trusting the president and his people to do their jobs correctly.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Oh, I think they know what they are doing...but why fix the problem on the cheap, in a couple of years, when you can simultaneously enrich your buddies in the oil industry, the military/industrial complex, and then actually probably fix it just in time to leave office?
The alternative, that they really are incompetent, scares me more. I'd rather have malicious profiteering followed by the shoring up of legacy, than incompetence.
The real tragedy is how much money went to tanks, guns, and bombs that could have been spent on alternative energy research.
The whole Middle Eastern terrorism thing is much more solvable by teaching tens of thousands of soldiers to speak Arabic and gather good intel, as well as using profiling and psychological techniques to understand the extremists. Nipping 9/11 in the bud would have been easier than dealing with the aftermath, and learning their language and mindset is the far better way to nip the thing in the bud. Also, diplomacy is pretty darn useful.
See, this is why I believe they are malicious profiteers, or at least Cheney is. He knows all this stuff, but has chosen to enrich the military/industrial complex instead of actually fix the problem as quickly and cheaply as possible. Oh well. We elected him, and haven't had the balls to impeach him yet. Thank God for term limits.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
^^Term limits don't necessarily mean they will leave office....
"President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances."
>>More if you click the link
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Bush also has the power to launch a nuclear attack on Russia. That doesn't mean that there is a significant chance that he will.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Don't dare him Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
Getting a little scary now, isn't it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nah. This is old news. Given that presidents have always technically had the power to declare martial law, what's your worry?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nope. Not scary in the least, Snowspot. If you were informed on anything other than hysteria, you'd know that.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I have a tough time imagining Bush as Palpatine.
I also have a tough time imagining Cheney as Vader, even though that analogy has been made by Bush himself.
Bush wouldn't be able to kill liberty with thunderous applause because the Delegation of 2000 makes up a majority of Congress.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not to the "thunderous applause" stage. However, I COULD imagine Bush -- or someone like him -- killing liberty to the sound of snarking from various pundits, occasional whining from the opposite side of the aisle, and a few whimpers.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
A truly strong and virtuous president would work to firmly codify the limits of the Executive Branch's powers. Clearly we need it.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
That would be the conservative approach Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, for a conservative president.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, I'm looking for a specific exchange of ours before replying on the issue of executive constitutional interpretation. I'm not ignoring you.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: A truly strong and virtuous president would work to firmly codify the limits of the Executive Branch's powers. Clearly we need it.
That would be possible if we also somehow had a magically virtuous congress who would not take advantage of such a precident and attempt to push the envelope even further in their favor.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's been argued that all of the recent Supreme Court nominees have been most strongly alike in their belief in a more powerful Executive branch, the "Unitary Executive" doctrine. Of course the current administration puts the idea in sharper relief, but I rather feel there's a greater danger right now in an unchecked POTUS than an unchecked Congress. Especially given Congress' unwillingness to agree on virtually anything. In most cases, I suspect more power to Congress would simply make the stagnation more ridiculous, whereas a president who feels he can repeatedly and unilaterally dismiss the represenation of his citizenry can do some real harm.
I don't think self-limiting of power is particularly conservative by most current definitions of conservative. Regulation tends to be more of a liberal thing. But whichever flag it falls under, I think right now it is necessary.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A truly strong and virtuous president would work to firmly codify the limits of the Executive Branch's powers. Clearly we need it.
I disagree with you. Our system does not need that, so long as the powers of the other two branches remain so flexible. Our system is hardwired for some chaos in this area.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
If a President posits the right to use his powers in any way he sees fit as long as a) the nation is in a state of war or insecurity(which it remains in as long as he deems it so) or b) restrictions to that power are in violation of the Constitution (which he reserves the right to determine), the flexibility of the other branches becomes largely irrelevant.
[ February 12, 2008, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Nope. Not scary in the least, Snowspot. If you were informed on anything other than hysteria, you'd know that.
IF you aren't scared, you haven't been paying enough attention.. and that's all I can say. America is no longer itself, open your eyes... we are deciding what kind of torture to use on people from a country we want to turn into a democracy. WE ARE USING TORTURE TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY..
ok just wanted to clear that up.
The reason we supposedly spread democracy is so dictators can't come into power that go against the will of the people. George Bush is doing exactly the opposite of what the majority of Americans are saying. 70% want out of Iraq.. and yet we stay .. and even expand. So are we even living in a democracy? IRaq didn't even attack us, Al Qaeda wasn't there, how is this any different than any other dictator seizing a country, gathering, torturing, killing enemies and civilians. You're stupid if you don't see this... but then again most of america chooses to ignore it, it's fine if you do to, whatever makes your life feel safe.
[ February 13, 2008, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Snowspot ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Snowspot: seriously, do you think we're idiots?
You're under the age of 25, right?
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
Why do you ignore what I say and ask my age? Respond to what I said.
There are people of all ages that are seeing the same things, it's not really relevant... and an obvious attempt to discredit what I say. Is that all you have? "What is your age?" Quite the debate aresenal you've got going there Would you like to know my favorite color too?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
(*Sigh*)
I'm not sure "How old are you" isn't an inappropriate question for rhetoric that basically states "agree with me, or you're a stupid sheep." Though it may be unfair to other posters who are young but not lacking in maturity.
A limited portion of our intelligence community has used waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other contraversial methods in order to extract information from known and/or suspected members of terrorist groups. I'm not thrilled about that, and I don't condone it. But my sentiments are shared by many in Congress, and I have reason to hope that- if only with a new President- we may comprehensively ban such tactics once and for all. Democracy, slow as the wheels may grind, appears to be moving to stop the practice.
That's a little different than, say, a secret police force that systematically tortures political prisoners by methods that take no consideration of the prisoner's well being and then kill them and dump their bodies.
Less humane practices were used at Abu Gharib, but we punished those immediately responsible. I wish the inquiries had gone further up the chain of command, but the most important factor is that we made it clear that we did not condone such mistreatment of prisoners.
Civilians have died in Iraq, but the only Americans who intentionally target civilians are arrested and tried.
I have grave questions about the way the Iraqi government is handling its own affairs; there are suggestions that they are indeed making use of torture and political intimidation, and I wish we were doing more to investigate and halt it. Unfortunately, one of the grotesque paradoxes of Iraq is that a government fairly elected by democratic means in Iraq may be one that uses methods we detest... So we're caught again in the position of saying "We want you to do democracy, but specifically, we want democracy done this way."
In short, I'm a long walk from pleased with the way any number of things are going in Iraq, but on my worst day I wouldn't suggest there's no difference between us and "any other dictator seizing a country, gathering, torturing, killing enemies and civilians", because it's simply not true, and such overblown hyperbole has the direct effect of making people dismiss whatever points I'd like to make on the subject as, well, overblown hyperbole.
...And, back to you, Tom. Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
It's not overblown hyperbole.. cause nothing I said was untrue. We are doing all those things. We even have detainment camps in Guantanamo, and since people are tried there and we never hear about it, they are basically concentration camps.. but instead of jews, we have muslim people inside... and there are dozens of stories coming out about people wrongly convicted, then tortured.
I can't make you believe what's happening, go do some research.
I am completely confident in the things I say, I'm sorry that disturbs some of you. I think you are wrong about the US ... and I think your justifications for it's human rights abuses are kind of sad.
This will probably be my last post as instead of people providing evidence... I get... what people THINK is going on, even though all the evidence contradicts that. I think perhaps there are a lot of conservative people on this board.. and that's probably why there are so many opinions like this. They put Bush in office so I can't really see them admitting what they did. They also live in a constant state of fear cause of... *gasp * TERROR!!
see ya
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:they are basically concentration camps...
This would be an example of overblown hyperbole. Can you think of a few ways in which our camps in Cuba are not basically "concentration camps?" Because I can.
quote:I am completely confident in the things I say...I think perhaps there are a lot of conservative people on this board.. and that's probably why there are so many opinions like this.
You don't need to be a conservative, you realize, to understand that the ability to legally declare martial law is not a power new to the presidency - or to recognize that there are in fact whole orders of magnitude of difference between both our intentions and our actions in Iraq and those of, say, the Nazis.
My guess is that you're relatively new to political conversation, particularly on the Internet. I suggest you Google Godwin's Law, and then give some thought as to why such a law might have evolved.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My suggestion is not as nice as Tom's. Hop in a time machine, fast forward five years to when you're twenty or so, ask yourself, "Self, am I embarrassed to look back on my posts from five years ago?" and see what answer you get.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We do have young posters who manage to hold up to intelligent, reasoned debate.
FYI.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Snowspot, I could point out exaggerations in your statements, I could point out errors, I could point out again that where mistakes had been made that they are arguably in the process of correction. Or compare the efficacy of snidely, dismissively and inaccurately lecturing the more liberal members of the board with any sort of real action in lobbying. I could even less gently point out the repugnance of comparing wrongful imprisonments with a deliberate attempt to wipe a people off the face of the Earth.
But if you're actually leaving, at this point, I'd hardly want to encourage you to stay.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: But if you're actually leaving, at this point, I'd hardly want to encourage you to stay.
He won't really leave....he still has to spread his OBVIOUS truths among our IGNORANT populace.
Obviously we need it....
Here is a clue.....try using the search function. You will not only lean how to find topics under discussion, you might learn something about what we are discussing as well, as it has been (and will continue to be) discussed vigorously for years now on this very site.
The fact that despite this, and despite our founders own political leanings, the site is still open for business with very little censoring of content...and none of the little bit of censoring has anything to do with politics.
This is almost as funny as when Jay accused Dag of being a liberal.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
OK, here is a question for all you Bush haters. What has Presidient Bush done that has affected your personal life negatively, i.e. how has your day to day life been negativly impacted by anything he has done?
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
I'm back!
and not even going to respond to JLM.. what an ignorant post
6.6 million dead since we invaded Afghanistan. Bush has been responsible for more people killed than jews in WW2.
So is he really not that bad? Or do you just not have a clear picture. There is no real debate if Bush is a bad president.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by JLM: OK, here is a question for all you Bush haters. What has Presidient Bush done that has affected your personal life negatively, i.e. how has your day to day life been negativly impacted by anything he has done?
I can think of a few ways that I'd attribute to things Bush has done, but I won't argue the specfics with you. But I can also think of a dozen incidents off the top of my head in history where leaders have led their nations to some type of ruin, all in the promise that nothing would change in their daily lives, or totally without protest because nothing changed for them. Even the stimulus package smacks of what my ancient history prof called "bread and circuses." It's all just mean to keep us content, self involved, and silent.
Freedoms are taken in inches, not miles.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Bush has been responsible for more people killed than jews in WW2.
Your numbers are a bit off, FYI.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
Here watch this, if you still deny it.. then there's nothing I or anyone else can do to make you think otherwise.
Tom, you really never seem to make any sort of point. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by JLM: OK, here is a question for all you Bush haters. What has Presidient Bush done that has affected your personal life negatively, i.e. how has your day to day life been negativly impacted by anything he has done?
It is impossible to know with certainty if another individual, with less emnity towards the previous administration, might have taken the existing intelligence on Al-Qaeda more seriously and perhaps prevented the events of September 11, 2001. If that could be established, the consequences for every American are manifold and obvious.
I can say with much greater certainty that without our current president, my brother-in-law would be in a local college working towards a degree rather than a being a recent divorcee with night terrors and an empty bank account.
There are other effects, but those are the most obvious.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snowspot: 6.6 million dead since we invaded Afghanistan. Bush has been responsible for more people killed than jews in WW2.
So is he really not that bad? Or do you just not have a clear picture. There is no real debate if Bush is a bad president.
So, there are six million Muslims imprisoned and heading towards execution because of Bush? No.
There are six million Muslims who have been executed because of Bush? No.
There are six million people who have been targetted for harrassment and/or execution on direct orders from Bush? No.
If you take every person who has been killed, imprisoned or displaced in the various military actions that have occurred since 2001, might you come up with a number in the millions? Yes.
Does that equate those numbers with the Holocaust?...
I believe the term "overblown hyperbole" is coming into vogue, and is likely to remain so for some time at this rate.
But then, you were leaving...
That Tom continues to bother to reply at all in the face of emoticon-based rhetoric is a tribute to his patience.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by JLM: OK, here is a question for all you Bush haters. What has Presidient Bush done that has affected your personal life negatively, i.e. how has your day to day life been negativly impacted by anything he has done?
I don't understand why you think that's a relevant question.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snowspot: 6.6 million dead since we invaded Afghanistan. Bush has been responsible for more people killed than jews in WW2.
So is he really not that bad? Or do you just not have a clear picture. There is no real debate if Bush is a bad president.
So, there are six million Muslims imprisoned and heading towards execution because of Bush? No.
There are six million Muslims who have been executed because of Bush? No.
There are six million people who have been targetted for harrassment and/or execution on direct orders from Bush? No.
If you take every person who has been killed, imprisoned or displaced in the various military actions that have occurred since 2001, might you come up with a number in the millions? Yes.
Does that equate those numbers with the Holocaust?...
I believe the term "overblown hyperbole" is coming into vogue, and is likely to remain so for some time at this rate.
But then, you were leaving...
That Tom continues to bother to reply at all in the face of emoticon-based rhetoric is a tribute to his patience.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Sterling we bear responsibility for all deaths caused either directly or indirectly by our invasion of Afghanistan. If the power vacuum caused by our invasion has led to millions of deaths then we are at least partially responsible even if we have no connection to the deaths beyond that. IIRC, Afghanistan was not a stable country before we invaded so I doubt that our invasion has actually led to six million deaths.
Of course, as you pointed out, there is no relation to the systematic slaughter witnessed in Nazi Germany.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"... my brother-in-law would be in a local college working towards a degree rather than a being a recent divorcee with night terrors and an empty bank account."
I've seen extended deployments destroy more than one marriage.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
One of my many frustrations with the Iraq operation is that it has diverted U.S. attention from Afghanistan and allowed power to fall [back] into the hands of warlords, opium dealers, and the remnant of the Taliban. "We bear a responsibility for the consequences, foreseen and unforeseen, of the invasion of Afghanistan" is a defensible statement and one from which one could conceivably devise a course of action. "Bush has caused more deaths than Hitler" is inaccurate, incendiary, and worse than useless.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
That was an nice piece of writing about Afghanistan. Only problem I found with it is when I went to click the link that would take me to the sources and data used to write this report I found that no such link exists. Which means I'm going to have to spend a couple of hours looking through site UNESCO and other places to even verify it's true.
Sadly this is something both sides are guilty of. They report news and leave us on our own to verify what they are saying, hoping I'm sure we won't and just take their word for it.
I am frighten that anyone can read something, believe it without question, and use it as "Proof".
Propaganda is heavily used by the the enemies of this country as well as our country itself. It is our duty to demand that reporters and spokes people back up what they tell us and provide the data used to reach their conclusions.
I'm not dismissing the article as false, I'm sure it exists but I've spent the last half hour on the UNESCO website looking for the Data since it was their data used to reach their 6.6 million dead number. It's late I'm tired so I'll leave fact checking and doucumentation up to people linking the information.
And don't do like my History Professors and just hand me more reports reporting on reports. I'm tired of second hand reports and people telling me I'm to "dumb" to understand the raw data. Get me the raw data and I'll decide if I can understand it or not.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I can say with much greater certainty that without our current president, my brother-in-law would be in a local college working towards a degree rather than a being a recent divorcee with night terrors and an empty bank account.
Obviously, I don't know the situation, but I don't think that placing the blame for the destruction of his marriage on Bush is exactly, completely fair.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's about as fair, perhaps more, as asking how Bush has affected my day-to-day life is relevant.
Without deployment to Iraq, I am quite certain the divorce would not have occurred, at least not as quickly and as early in the marriage as it did. When one party is in Germany and the other is in Iraq for extended periods of time, counselling is impossible.
Bush didn't directly cause the divorce. But it's one in a ludicrously long list of unintended consequences of the invasion, many of which were never contemplated at all.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I can see Sterling's point. I also can see the difficulties in a soldier getting used to civilian life again. As commander in chief, Bush is semi-responsible for those things. I would like to see the military provide PRIVATE counseling. Their current policy of making that counseling part of your military record is highly detrimental.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Their current policy of making that counseling part of your military record is highly detrimental.
It could prove an interesting tangent, but to some extent isn't making sure counseling is a part of your record necessary?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Anyone who is half way intelligent will not admit to anything bad if they know that it will be part of the decision to promote them or not. While I think psych evaluations should be included in promotional decision, there should also be an option of counseling that has the typical doctor/patient privacy rules applied.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Your suggestion doesn't seem to make much sense. Given the option of totally private counseling, do you think anyone would choose anything else?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I wonder how conservatives who are very pro-military can hate Clinton for cutting back on the military, in the wake of the kind of waste along the lines of $600 toilet seats and $900 hammers. Seriously, how would you justify being simultaneously pro-military and anti-government-waste?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
For many jobs, there are required psychological tests (such as fireman, cops, anyone with security clearance). I would not drop those required sessions for the military. However, if a soldier wanted additional sessions beyond that requirement, I think those should be easily accessible and private.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by JLM: OK, here is a question for all you Bush haters. What has Presidient Bush done that has affected your personal life negatively, i.e. how has your day to day life been negativly impacted by anything he has done?
It is impossible to know with certainty if another individual, with less emnity towards the previous administration, might have taken the existing intelligence on Al-Qaeda more seriously and perhaps prevented the events of September 11, 2001. If that could be established, the consequences for every American are manifold and obvious.
I can say with much greater certainty that without our current president, my brother-in-law would be in a local college working towards a degree rather than a being a recent divorcee with night terrors and an empty bank account.
There are other effects, but those are the most obvious.
I think Causality is more complicated than this... This reminds me of the "Video Games cause the Columbine shootings" argument. If one would take the situation back that far, then why not a step farther and say it's your brother's own fault for enlisting in the military? Or for getting married? It's entirely possible that only his ex-wife knows the REAL reason, and maybe it has nothing to do with any of this.
I would wager that you could take very nearly ANY negative thing that's happened to you and somehow trace a line to Bush.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
If one chose to, with a sufficiently loose chain, one could connect virtually any event to any other event. You can argue that losing a ball when you were three caused you to lose your job when you were thirty. That doesn't mean that all associations of cause are equal, or invalid.
Video games did not put guns in Harris and Klebolds' hands. They did not cause the feelings of alienation that caused them to plan the crime. They weren't responsible for their parents' failing to notice their childrens' activities, or any other persons in their lives from noticing the turn their lives were taking. The links between Columbine and video games are vague and highly hypothetical.
My brother-in-law enlisted in the army because he was feeling, as were many, a surge of patriotism after the events of September 11. Had Bush not been in office, those events might have been prevented. Or they might not.
America proceeded to launch an invasion of Afghanistan, which might have also occurred under another President. He might have been called up for duty in that invasion. However, it is also likely that if there had only been that invasion, the American military would not have overextended itself to the point of needing repeated and extended deployments, as our allies have been far more willing to lend their assistance in Afghanistan than Iraq.
Then Iraq happened. Called up for duty, my brother-in-law proposed to his girlfriend. When he returned, they married, armed with the understanding that he was to be stationed in Germany, where they could be together, not Iraq, where they would not. Unfortunately, that proved to be an untruth he was told by those in charge, so his new wife ended up in Germany and he ended up in Iraq.
In the interest of diplomacy, I will simply say that if you think that without Bush in office things would have turned out this way, you are wrong. There isn't a single abstract thread of causality here, there are multiple concrete links.
I mean, yeah, maybe over a year apart, her isolation in a country that didn't speak her language, and his PTSD didn't contribute to divorce. But at a certain point, you're giving yourself permission to believe that the clouds overhead aren't causing the droplets that are falling on you.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I agree that sylvrdragon has consistently demonstrated that the pro-military stance he assumes here goes beyond reason.
"Had Bush not been in office, those events might have been prevented. Or they might not."
According to the wiki, the hijackers all entered the US before Bush took office. They were planning this for a while. I don't think Bush/Cheney have handled it well, but I don't think it would necessarily have been stopped under a different administration. However, that's a little hard to say either way, I agree.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
We received intel months before telling us Al Qaeda was going to try to hit the US, Condi ignored it. In fact, here's a video of her testimony, notice how she tries to talk through the man's entire alotted questioning time... so he can't ask more questions.
quote:We received intel months before telling us Al Qaeda was going to try to hit the US, Condi ignored it. In fact, here's a video of her testimony, notice how she tries to talk through the man's entire alotted questioning time... so he can't ask more questions.
The video supports no such thing. The video is Condi Rice answering questions about whether or not the US Intelligence Agencies had proof refuting the widely held belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Al Queda isn't mentioned.
Maybe you linked to the wrong thing, Snowspot.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: [QB] I agree that sylvrdragon has consistently demonstrated that the pro-military stance he assumes here goes beyond reason.
I wouldn't say beyond reason. Perhaps just outside the scope of the current discussion. My being pro-military has very little to do with politics, or with the US at all. In my mind, I'm taking an objective stance from a point of view significantly farther away than the general scope of this thread. I won't get farther into that line of discussion unless asked to (via PM preferably), as I already know that my ideas won't be popular.
You may be happy to know that as I gain more information, my stance DOES change a few degrees at a time, but not always in the direction that people here seem to want. Thus far, my overall stance on War hasn't really changed.
My previous statement had absolutely nothing to do with my 'stance' however. I was merely drawing attention to what is, in my opinion, a faulty piece of logic. Nitpicking, if you will.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: [QB]Bush didn't directly cause the divorce. But it's one in a ludicrously long list of unintended consequences of the invasion, many of which were never contemplated at all.
They were never contemplated because they are all but impossible to predetermine. ANYTHING, even the most selfless and 'Righteous' act will likely garner unforeseen consequences. Such things CANNOT reasonably be used in a political debate. What I find most disconcerting was that you pretty much outlined my entire point and basically said 'but this doesn't apply to my case'.
I'm not going to address your case specifically though (any more than, or as much as, I already have), as I understand that it can be difficult to discuss personal matters objectively. I don't want to be misconstrued as attacking you or yours on anything resembling a personal level.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QUOTE]We received intel months before telling us Al Qaeda was going to try to hit the US, Condi ignored it. In fact, here's a video of her testimony, notice how she tries to talk through the man's entire alotted questioning time... so he can't ask more questions.
The video supports no such thing. The video is Condi Rice answering questions about whether or not the US Intelligence Agencies had proof refuting the widely held belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Al Queda isn't mentioned.
Maybe you linked to the wrong thing, Snowspot. [/QUOTE0]
Yeah I definitely posted the wrong link sorry. I was thinking of another video that I will go dig up later. For some reason I combined what was in two videos in my head, then just figured this was it. Anyway... Don't you have anything to say about her testimony? I find it pretty shocking. What do you think?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No, I don't find it shocking at all. I thought she answered the Senator very ably. Whether what she said was true or not, I don't know; I do know that he seemed to be trying to make mountains out of molehills.
Basically, he was trying to equate 'untrue' and 'mistaken' with 'lying.'
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: No, I don't find it shocking at all. I thought she answered the Senator very ably. Whether what she said was true or not, I don't know; I do know that he seemed to be trying to make mountains out of molehills.
Basically, he was trying to equate 'untrue' and 'mistaken' with 'lying.'
Even if they were "mistaken" as you put it, why do you want people who can't do their job in office? What's if they are mistaken again? Over and Over they are "mistaken" like Alberto Gonzalez can't recall anything.
It seems to me like you just want to make excuses for them.
What's if they did something you really disagreed with? You do realize at this point that because you support them, you're supporting the loss of your rights? Look at all the people protesting now and we even have democrats in office and still... no one can stop bush from doing whatever he wants. Can't you see that he has almost dictator-like powers? That even if you support his agenda, so much power cannot be concentrated in one place?
At this point Bush can do whatever he wants then call it executive decision... people who supported Bush have now given all future presidents that right. Just remember that when someone you don't like comes into office.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Even if they were "mistaken" as you put it, why do you want people who can't do their job in office?
You're jumping to conclusions unsupported by actual context.
I'm not guilty of the things you think I'm guilty of.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Look at all the people protesting now and we even have democrats in office and still... no one can stop bush from doing whatever he wants. Can't you see that he has almost dictator-like powers?
Actually, many of the Democrats in office, your would-be-if-Dubya-wasn't-so-awful saviors, are and have been doing an awful lot of pussyfooting around. It's not as though they've spent the past five years making heroic efforts only to be thwarted by the Almighty Bush.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Look at all the people protesting now and we even have democrats in office and still... no one can stop bush from doing whatever he wants.
More to the point -- and I'm speaking as a Democrat, here -- Democrats haven't really tried. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: They were never contemplated because they are all but impossible to predetermine. ANYTHING, even the most selfless and 'Righteous' act will likely garner unforeseen consequences. Such things CANNOT reasonably be used in a political debate. What I find most disconcerting was that you pretty much outlined my entire point and basically said 'but this doesn't apply to my case'.
I'm not going to address your case specifically though (any more than, or as much as, I already have), as I understand that it can be difficult to discuss personal matters objectively. I don't want to be misconstrued as attacking you or yours on anything resembling a personal level.
9/11 could have happened with someone else in office. But it happened with Bush in office. The invasion of Afghanistan could have occurred with someone else in office, but it happened with Bush in office.
But Iraq? The occupation James Baker, the previous Bush, and numerous pragmatic Republicans have said they hadn't engaged in post-Desert Storm for very specific reasons? The occupation that caused Newt Gingrich to comment in dismay on the lack of planning?
That is the baby of the Bush Administration, in all it's monumentally ill-fated glory.
Yes, I can't know the results of a past that never happened. But if a different president had stopped at Afghanistan, the probability is that my brother-in-law would have spent the umpteen months as a missile technician in Germany (as he had re-trained to be) rather than a mental health counselor in Iraq.
I'm sorry to bring it up like it was some kind of a trump card. But if someone asks me how Bush has affected my life, what has become of his life looms large.
Posted by Legatio (Member # 11485) on :
The price of being a soldier in any warring nation or even peaceful nation is always the same. The fact that Bush is in office simply meant that your brother-in-law is working in Iraq. If Bush wasn't in office then he could in fact be in Germany but is that really so much better? Every soldier, and I'm sure your brother would agree, knows that they are there to answer to that call of duty. Bush only made that call different by saying, "Hey, your in Iraq, not Germany." Which is really no difference at all.
People claim that being a soldier in Iraq is the worst thing in the world, but it really isn't. We are really doing well with this war (or occupation or rehabilitation or whatever it is you please). But working in, say, Germany wouldn't be any better. The location they are doing their work in doesn't change the fact that these soldiers are really doing some tough work and they know and knew what they are getting into.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Democrats did their best, whatever that was, to stymie Republican efforts in the first few years of the Bush presidency, but I think their biggest problem then, and still somewhat now, is the idea that they have to apologize for being what they are. Democrats believe many things, and support and oppose many things, but they all too often let politics and their fear of what Republicans could do to them in the media and politically to effect the way they voted in Congress.
That's changed a bit since they got into power, but now a whole lot. They've managed to push through a very few things that would've never seen the light of day with a Republican Congress, and they've managed to tamp down measures that would've been easily passed in a Republican Congress, but for the most part they're letting the Republicans win pretty much across the board because they are afraid to mix it up.
I DO expect that to change after November. I suspect a lot of their pussyfooting is a result of fear of losing Congress ahead of hopefully getting a Democratic president. They want to hold on to power enough to actually USE it without being vetoed on everything and have it be sustained by a razor thin Republican minority. They might be in power, but it doesn't necessarily matter to have a 51/49 majority or even in the House, whatever their majority is, not when Republicans largely vote together and it takes much bigger numbers to break vetoes and in the Senate to bring items out of debate (Democrats regularly fail in cloture motions, and things die of filibuster) and onto the floor for a vote where they'd likely passs. Procedural technicalities make anything less than two thirds majority useless.
However. Pay Leahy in the Senate is attacking Bush like a bulldog on a lot of measures, most notably he hasn't let the fired US attorneys thing go. There are a LOT of things they could go after from his first term, but with less than a year left now, I really don't see there being time, and besides, Republicans will successfully spin that many investigations as pure partisan politics. Even now he's getting hammered all over the board from the minority leader's office to the White House for playing politics and "overstepping his authority." It's become less about the specifics of the case and more about power struggling between the Executive and Legislative Branches, which is exactly what is needed, so, they aren't doing NOTHING, they just aren't doing very much, and what they are doing, no one really talks about.
Posted by Snowspot (Member # 11465) on :
I don't think all the democrats are trying hard... but the ones that are trying are facing roadblocks that were seemingly put into place just by this administration. At every turn there has been some loophole or some clause, a signing statement, or an "executive decision" that has ended in failure for the dems. It just seems like there is no oversight.. I mean we have the president blatantly breaking the law with the telephone companies... and now we are debating giving the them immunity? WHY?!!?
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Legatio: The price of being a soldier in any warring nation or even peaceful nation is always the same. The fact that Bush is in office simply meant that your brother-in-law is working in Iraq. If Bush wasn't in office then he could in fact be in Germany but is that really so much better? Every soldier, and I'm sure your brother would agree, knows that they are there to answer to that call of duty. Bush only made that call different by saying, "Hey, your in Iraq, not Germany." Which is really no difference at all.
People claim that being a soldier in Iraq is the worst thing in the world, but it really isn't. We are really doing well with this war (or occupation or rehabilitation or whatever it is you please). But working in, say, Germany wouldn't be any better. The location they are doing their work in doesn't change the fact that these soldiers are really doing some tough work and they know and knew what they are getting into.
Actually, he mentioned that his Brother-in-law's wife was in Germany. By being sent to Iraq, he was separated from her when he wasn't supposed to have been.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Bush only made that call different by saying, "Hey, your in Iraq, not Germany." Which is really no difference at all.
I know more than a few soldiers. I think they would disagree with you. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Legatio: People claim that being a soldier in Iraq is the worst thing in the world, but it really isn't. We are really doing well with this war (or occupation or rehabilitation or whatever it is you please). But working in, say, Germany wouldn't be any better. The location they are doing their work in doesn't change the fact that these soldiers are really doing some tough work and they know and knew what they are getting into.
Well, minus the looming fear of death a soldier might face in Iraq, I would agree.
Posted by AJFleckenstein (Member # 10912) on :
I'm really surprised to find OSC being so partisan one minded on the matter. Even more so after reading Empire, to learn that he chose to ignore that he was talking about politicians, they are inherantly evil and rich.
On a side note, I am an Arizonan born and raised... please, do not let McCain into the presidency! there is so much the press dont talk about in regard to his career, policies, and character. If nothing else, his wife is a drug addict, but being in the light as she is she created a non-profit organization so she could steal her drugs from the foundation. If McCain is a true American who loves this country and all of its regulations, then why has his wife received no punishment for this crime past rehab?
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
personally, i think the beauty of being in a 'free society' is that we CAN voice our dessent; but we should offer the other person the same opportunity.... having said that, i think card's more sardonic than people actually realize when they let themselves get worked up over his personal views. i believe that the american people should shoot the two party system to death, abolish the rank of 'commander in chief' so that no ONE person can decide to go to war or not-which is the way it's SUPPOSED TO BE now. the democratic party is obsessed with 'progressive stupidity' by putting our rights that we inherit via the constitution in jeopardy and by tearing to shreds the constitution and common decency. the republican party is obsessed with clinging to archaic traditions that are out-dated; although being conservative ISN'T 'old-fashioned', and i believe we should be more conservative than we've become. it's interesting though, the democratic party often shoots each other in public yet the republican party decides to keep the backstabbing behind closed doors, where it ought to remain.... honestly, do we really NEED to know about a politician's moral lack? i mean, they're POLITICIANS for cryin out loud! absolutely NONE of the candidates this election year is even REMOTELY addequate for the job and the mess the next president is going to have to face. it'd be silly to assume that they're going to wave a magic wand and all the problems will disappear: clinton/obama won't be able to pull our troops out of iraq without heavy consequences there and especially here. mccain... well, romny said it best: "washington is broken. you don't send someone that's part of the problem back to fix what's broken..." ah... nevermind.... just nuke the world and leave it for the roaches, then we wouldn't have to deal with this mess...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:honestly, do we really NEED to know about a politician's moral lack?
Good question. Ignorance is bliss. We shouldn't pry into the amorality of our leaders, because they're supposed to be our leaders, duh!
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
How many presidents have we had throughout history that HASN'T led a morally bereft life prior and during their presidancy? It's sickening to hear about them on the news and it gets quite old... though I think there ought to be a certain standard required to meet in order to fill an office of any sort. But then, I think we'd simply be leaderless...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:How many presidents have we had throughout history that HASN'T led a morally bereft life prior and during their presidancy?
Depends on your definition, but off the top of my head I can think of a few.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Constipatron: How many presidents have we had throughout history that HASN'T led a morally bereft life prior and during their presidancy?
Most of them.
Posted by Clandestineguitarplayer (Member # 11571) on :
You stupid bastard! You were just brutally attacking him because HE had a different onion than YOU! That rant was hipocritic in its own and it completely contradicted everything you were apparently going for... Keep those stupid thoughts to yourself and spare us all please...
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Thanks for contributing your onion, CGP.
Posted by Clandestineguitarplayer (Member # 11571) on :
Always Morbo!
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I'm not sure that Morbo is being sincere...
Posted by Clandestineguitarplayer (Member # 11571) on :
Pretty sure he's not... There was no 'dripping with sarcasm' button on my keyboard for that reply so it might have sounded like i was naively accepting praise, but honestly I wasnt. I just cant see why there has to be Magic Rats in this world who think its their job to cut people down because they 'know better' and I will totally admit that my anger quite eagerly showed earlier on... But its difficult to contain as I am sure any other human being would agree with me on that. I am not backtracking and I stand by everything I said...
Except maybe the 'Stupid Bastard' comment...
My bad...
*gets spanked*
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Why lower the level of discussion by focusing on his immature comments?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Y'know, him supporting Bush is all well and good, but I disagree with him 100% about Bush. He's been TERRIBLE for this country. Spending almost trillions on Iraq, being against unemployment extensions for people who need them, ignoring the current economic crisis. i think a depression could be prevented if it is faced head on and directly. No ignoring it and thinking it will go away like the current administration is doing. I am so mad about this. It's getting worse every day, and nothing direct is being done about it.
How could OSC possibly have thought the economy is GOOD?! If you can't even get a decent temp job, it's a sign of something being wrong.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: ignoring the current economic crisis.
There you're just wrong. Bush hasn't been ignoring the "crisis" at all. He's been throwing quite a lot of money at it. And in doing so making it worse.
Posted by Clandestineguitarplayer (Member # 11571) on :
Threads... You are wiser than I... Sarcasm aside... I will honestly try to learn. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
New episode of Lost this Thursday....
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If you can't even get a decent temp job, it's a sign of something being wrong.
It may be. But it might not have anything to do with the economy.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:If you can't even get a decent temp job, it's a sign of something being wrong.
It may be. But it might not have anything to do with the economy.
It has everything to do with the economy. I honestly don't think these folks are doing what is best for the country, but what THEY think is best, even when it's hurting millions of people out there. For example- Outsourcing underemployment, going from making a decent some of money to 8 dollars an hour, no one can live off of that these days increasing gas prices while still allowing gas companies to have tax breaks and so many other things that are just making things worse.
also my head is killing me right now.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Syn, not to be cruel, but there are reasons, other than the economy, for why people can't get jobs.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
"I can't get a job; it's Bush's fault. I have night terrors and a broken home because I was in Iraq; it's Bush's fault."
Okay, so as commander-in-chief, he's taken on the responsibilities of making decisions about going to war and the economy, but it is weak to blame your personal woes on someone so far removed from you, no matter how directly you are affected by his decisions. If your wife cheats on you and drains your savings while you are at war, maybe the blame should start with the wife. If you're having night terrors because of the war, maybe you shouldn't re-up instead of letting yourself get re-deployed again and again. And if you can't get a job, well, telling the landlady it's Bush's fault isn't gonna get the rent paid. You're better off trying to figure out why someone else got it instead of you.
Besides, the Army's hiring!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Syn, not to be cruel, but there are reasons, other than the economy, for why people can't get jobs.
These days it is the economy. If it were a handful of people struggling to get jobs, there would be one thing. But right now we are in a recession whether they want to admit it or not. There's been a recession probably since October. It's never been this bad before. Every single agency I call, and right now I'm registed with at least 14 agencies, says that jobs are scarce. It's not just me and a handful of unemployed people, the news is saying the same thing to. I am not lazy. I've trecked miles in all sorts of weather trying to get a job, cold freezing rain, snow, 18 degree weather. The most I've gotten was a 3 day gig that was supposed to be 6 weeks but they over hired and a 7 day mostly working at home job last month that I finally got paid for last week. The gas prices are up, the food prices have increased. Being unemployed these days is different then it was last time in 2002. There are hundreds of resumes being sent out for one job. There is a severe problem. It's been like this since this whole housing market collapse. What I think is there's a crisis brewing and if it's not taken care of it will get worse. This current administration is not helping the matter. You do not spend billions of dollars on a war and have tax cuts, nor do you allow the sort of business practices that led to the housing collapse to continue without some sort of regulation (though, people's greed and desparation plays a part in things.) There's a severe problem out there when it's not just me, because I have gotten better at applying for jobs. I have gotten some responses, but it's millions of educated, intelligent Americans who can't get a simple decent job. It's not just Bush either. Clinton didn't help with his whole NAFTA treaty and job outsourcing which has been going on for decades. It's really bleeding this country to death and if it's not handled directly, I'm really afraid for this country.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
"instead of letting yourself get re-deployed again and again"
Resh- that isn't really fair. People who sign up for a year find themselves one for several years. My friend's tou of duty was extended by 6 months and there is nothing he can do about it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:These days it is the economy.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The economy is a factor. It may even be a factor OFTEN. But it's not nearly as cut-and-dried as you seem to think.
quote: It's never been this bad before.
It has been worse.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
We are sooooooo screwed. It really WILL get worse if something isn't done about it!
You set yourself up for correction. Whether or not I agree with you is set aside to explain that your first two examples of us being IN a reccession say:
quote: The odds the country will fall into its first recession since 2001 are rising sharply.
Not "WE ARE IN A RECESSION! OMG!! WE ARE DOOMED!" Now if it said THAT. You might have a statement to make. Still, lets look at your other sources:
quote: Jobless claims up more than expected Weekly data portend more pressure from weak economy
Up more than expected eh? Like gas prices? Like everything... well, that does not = reccession, it = major inflation, which is an element, but not the maker of a reccession.
quote: Fed: Economy worsened in early spring Shoppers hit by housing, credit debacles, weaker job climate
So it's worse. Well, I guess that means that any little good thing that happens, will tremendously help. Put a positive spin on negative news and see if we don't get out of this "reccession" a little bit quicker with a spoon full of faith.
quote: U.S. seeing worst food inflation in 17 years Food vendors are forced to explain higher prices; poor squeezed
Worst in 17 years... wow... that is bad. But wait a minute... 17 years ago would have been...1991... right? Did the world end in 1991? Did our entire psyche collapse and the flow of technology cease to the point where we are now dying and starving at a rate to which we will never recover?
The answer, simply, is no.
Inovation and renovation of our society moves us out of dips and slip ups in our economical and societal judgements. The only thing holding the dollar at bay from strengthening is a weak perception, not weak action.
People are spending at such an alarming rate that credit is the worst it's been, but people are not quiting, so spending in the economy isn't the problem.
China is selling and we are buying, maintaining positive trade routes and enforcing our world market stance which grants us millions of dollars in subsidies from the UN each year. We are not poor because we import, and we are deffinetely exporting refined goods at a much more efficient level then ever before.
And this "Jobless Claims" bussiness, it only shows one side of the statistic. While it is true there are not many Union, well paying and comfy jobs available to us as was in yester-year, how is it possible that the 50,000 immigrants who find themselves here illegally each year manage to find work and money? Seems to me the numbers just don't fit. If the job doesn't pay the bills, that doesn't mean you shouldn't take the job, it just means you may need to find another one too, or take the help and the job. The economist here tell you a story that suggest there ARE no jobs, when, like 17 years ago, and like in 2001, there are plenty, they just aren't jobs many would like to do.
You want a solution to your up-and-coming reccession? One Word:
Propaganda.
They are already using it on you now so why not turn it back. Positive re-enforcement isn't a crime and it isn't a lie, it is hope and we need lot of that right now. We need gutsy investors putting their millions back into the stock market and powerful entrepenures to throw their ideas for great business into the pot to stew. We need a revolution of thought and action.
We don't need statistics telling us whats wrong, we need people DOING something to change it.
/end rant
~Ish
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
True, but I think we've been in a recession longer than the media has started talking about it.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish:
quote: The odds the country will fall into its first recession since 2001 are rising sharply.
Not "WE ARE IN A RECESSION! OMG!! WE ARE DOOMED!" Now if it said THAT. You might have a statement to make. Still, lets look at your other sources:
The most recent WSJ poll of economists has a majority of them believing we are in a recession. Happy-talk will not make that go away.
quote: The weakening U.S. economy has further to fall, according to the majority of economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.
By a 3-to-1 ratio, respondents said the economy is in a recession, and almost three-quarters said the economy hasn't yet hit bottom. "It's hard to say," said Lou Crandall of Wrightson ICAP, because "it doesn't feel like anything we've experienced in decades."
[ April 21, 2008, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Ish (Member # 11579) on :
I will yet again state that just because they believe we are in a recession, does not make it so. You would need to show me a deffintion of a recession, followed by the parameters that our current state meets in order to prove that point clearly.
You state also that "happy-talk" will not make that go away. Are you suggesting that the media has no power to change our world? Are you trying to get me to believe that yellow journalism, war propaganda and the "above-the-influence" type commercials we see every day do not have an effect on us? I don't think you will get me to believe that.
Words sell, and what they sell is thought, and thought leads to action, but until we get to that action, it's a steep hill from where we are at. Right now, morale in the US SEEMS down because lead experts say it is. IF and only IF lead experts predicted a POSITIVE turn, more faith would be put into US economies. More faith would then be put in the dollar and therefore on our market, taking us out of a recession.
However, I will conceed without proof, no expert will be listened to, so we must find the small, but profitable growths we have in the United States and make them headlines. Rather then let the destruction of the economy barrage our frontpage.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Like i said before, the media hasn't even started talking about what's going on until recently and they say we're PROBABLY in a recession. Dude, we already ARE in one! Even Greenspan admits it. THe dollar has probably be weakening for ages, and not facing it isn't going to help. Look how slow the job market has been? I'm not expert in the economy, but it's pretty bad right now.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Ish, you seem to be granting words a magical power they do not possess.
quote: However, I will conceed without proof, no expert will be listened to. . .
Or are you? Now I don't know what to think!? Won't some leading expert spell it out for me? Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: "I can't get a job; it's Bush's fault. I have night terrors and a broken home because I was in Iraq; it's Bush's fault."
Okay, so as commander-in-chief, he's taken on the responsibilities of making decisions about going to war and the economy, but it is weak to blame your personal woes on someone so far removed from you, no matter how directly you are affected by his decisions. If your wife cheats on you and drains your savings while you are at war, maybe the blame should start with the wife. If you're having night terrors because of the war, maybe you shouldn't re-up instead of letting yourself get re-deployed again and again.
Resh, it's like you live in a bubble and have never heard of stop-loss, despite showing such enthusiasm for all things military. Show a little compassion.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, I WAS in the army, and I did a year in Iraq, I was in combat, and I had nightmares. They (the retention officers and NCOs) tried to tell me I had no choice but to re-enlist or be reassigned to a unit with stop-loss already activated. I told them kiss my ass. Now I'm in college. I have buddies who complained every day about how much they hated being in Iraq and how they hated being in the Army, and they re-enlisted. I give them sh*t for it all the time, but they know I respect their decision. But they also know they garner no sympathy from me for how miserable they are. We're soldiers, we don't need anyones compassion. Stop condescending to us. We still vote overwhelmingly Republican.
[edit] Stop-loss is not indefinite. No one who was in the army before the war is still there except by choice.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not all hopefully. Do you see what a right pig's ears these guys are making of the economy? And I don't trust them when it comes to military issues or just about anything else. heck, I don't trust politicians period. They will totally use anything to get people to vote for them, including implying that folks who don't vote for them do not love America, apple pie or American puppies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:We're soldiers, we don't need anyones compassion. Stop condescending to us. We still vote overwhelmingly Republican.
And therein lies a national lose/lose situation for Democrats. Show compassion and understanding for soldiers and they apparently call it condescension and vote Republican. Fail to show it and Republicans say Democrats don't care about the armed forces and they get beat up in the national media.
And we wonder why this country is so screwed up.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not sure that taking Resh's word for it is advisable, Lyrhawn.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Me either.
But do keep telling people you're for the troops but against the war. That seems to be working very well for you.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Me either.
But do keep telling people you're for the troops but against the war. That seems to be working very well for you.
As opposed to lying to get votes?
Do keep doing that. That seems to be working well for you.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Me either.
But do keep telling people you're for the troops but against the war. That seems to be working very well for you.
So the only way to support the troops is to send them to war?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
That's jumping to conclusions, isn't?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Just trying to share with you Resh that the reason people say "I support the troops but not the war" is because it's the truth.
Sometimes the truth hurts. But that doesn't change it.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Just trying to share with you Resh that the reason people say "I support the troops but not the war" is because it's the truth.
Sometimes the truth hurts. But that doesn't change it.
That was supposed to hurt? I just found it a bit of a stretch. I know plenty of people think they can support the troops, in a specific, "we just want you safe and sound right here in America" sort of way. My point is that the troops, in a general sort of way, think that's stupid. We don't like being in Iraq, but we hate having our work sabotaged by our "supporters" back home. We'd rather you were all... somehow made to shut up... and not allowed to speak such comforts to the bastards who keep trying to kill us over there.
I read about that poll, Morbo, and found some of its conclusions dubious. I've participated in similar surveys and the wording of the questions allow the surveyor to allow whatever conclusion they desire be made. Look at what the headline says, and look at what the actual poll says. The troops "signal desire to come home." But the poll says "only 23 percent... felt that the US should 'stay as long as needed.'" Plus it was conducted by Zogby and funded by a left-wing organization. So... I'm gonna call this one a "fail."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There is something called free-speech, you know. Something soldiers state they are defending? If you don't have people questioning something, how can you learn the whole picture? Plus, not all people from a group think exactly alike.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
No of course not. I'm speaking generally here.
As for free speech, I'm all for it. Except when your free speech undermines the military's mission in Iraq and can be directly traced toward increased danger to the soldiers. Maybe you're exercising your freedom to speak. But you are also being seditious, and the line must be drawn somewhere. Kinda like saying pornography is free speech. You're just dressing up your filth and dishonor as some sort of virtue, like courage for standing up for what's right. It's amazing how we could have let our perception of right and wrong become so corrupted from what is actually right and wrong.
By you, I mean you people, not you specifically, Syn. Though if I remember correctly, I think you are on of those people.
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
Resh, sedition is a serious charge, and from what I'm reading here, there is no sedition going on here under current US law. If you refer moreso to a moral definition of sedition, well, this type of speech must be protected often, despite its potential harmfulness and moral repugnance. It is necessary in public life in a way that pornography is not, and that's where your analogy breaks down.
Here's why: I believe that everyone here and most everyone falling under "those people" in your definition intends by their speech expression primarily to affect the lawful civilian political process in order to effect change in the policy of our federal government by communicating constituency sentiment to representatives and to affect our representation by affecting the outcome of elections. As long as this is the case, the speech must be protected under the first ammendment, at any cost.
Even if it is reasonably perceived by some to hurt the US military cause abroad, if the speech can be construed as being primarily directed towards affecting the domestic political process, it should not be censored nor should the speaker be prosecuted.
I believe this serves our country better than accusing people of sedition.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well put, but what if the speech -if its primary or even sole purpose is to affect change in domestic policy- causes such a degree of harm to the current policy that what should be certain victory turns to certain defeat? And what if defeat is viewed as the most effective or perhaps the only way to achieve the policy changes the speaker desires? Should this speech still be protected?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well put, but what if the speech -if its primary or even sole purpose is to affect change in domestic policy- causes such a degree of harm to the current policy that what should be certain victory turns to certain defeat? And what if defeat is viewed as the most effective or perhaps the only way to achieve the policy changes the speaker desires? Should this speech still be protected?
Yes. That doesn't mean I think the speech should actually be expressed. But it should certainly be protected.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're a curious bunch Resh.
Yeah, I support the troops but not the war, in that I think they should be given every protection we can afford, and I support giving them that, but it's my preference that they be brought home.
If you want to see the difference between supporting and not supporting the troops whilst not supporting the war, look at the difference between this war and Vietnam.
No, you don't want to go back to that, you just want everyone who disagrees with you to shut up, it's the new American way!
Sorry but, soldiers have a duty to go where they are sent. Citizens have a duty to speak out when we think they are being sent to the wrong place. Silence got us into this mess. Silence won't get us out.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: Actually, he mentioned that his Brother-in-law's wife was in Germany. By being sent to Iraq, he was separated from her when he wasn't supposed to have been.
Thanks, sylvrdragon. I vaguely noticed those comments, but largely felt that I just didn't have the energy to correct someone who couldn't be bothered to read the earlier posts in the first place.
And I'd respond to Resh, but, apparently, he's departed Hatrack. Briefly, I find it hard to find fault with someone who re-applies in order to have some control over his deployment when threatened with stop-lossing; they might be bluffing, but he had no way to know that, and there have certainly been enough cases of it occurring for one to not think it a bluff. Given the incredibly small number of mental health counselors in Baghdad, I suspect it wasn't an empty threat. Frankly, he was lied to.
If anyone's interested, he's back in Germany, and apparently in a transition process that's going to lead to an honorable discharge for PTSD. Almost don't want to mention it for fear of jinxing him, knock wood.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I didn't even catch Resh in here accusing people of sedition like a good lil' armchair generalissimo.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
KAC ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
Would you like to know my favorite color too?
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)