Recent threads seem to have turned into slur slinging and outbursts of Tourettes rather than logical discussions (as this one surely will as well). I was wondering what perspective the majority here on TERB have, thus I posted this poll.
What really is the use of these arguments? It might even be that it is impossible for balanced discussions to take place. Opposing parties are discussing from their relative perspectives, which often are as different as apples and oranges.
What is your perspective? Take the quiz to get somewhat of an idea.
http://search.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html
http://search.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
I do not believe that emotional accusations need to enter into a levelheaded logical discussion.
Facts might be stated with a given position as well as defenses for that position, however, being human, invariably emotion will well up and then everything goes to shit!
Some interesting questions:
What was the US’s justification for invading Iraq? WMD? Terrorism? The removal of a despot? All of the above?
Were WMD found in Iraq? Were facilities to manufacture WMD found? Are there farms and factories whose production could be converted to manufacture WMD located in Iraq? Are there people in the US who grow Caster Oil Plants? Should the US be invaded because said people might produce ricin? (Never mind that the US HAS WMD). If the US was in possession of WMD and they threatened or say even initiated hostilities towards another nations, should they be invaded? Did the US administration want to selectively believe the intelligence on Iraq’s WMD program? What about O’Neil’s claim that 10 days after the inauguration Bush said: “Go find me a way to do this” speaking about regime change and Saddam Hussein needing to go? Was selectively interpreting intelligence reports as testified by George Tenet the “way” Bush was talking about?
Was Saddam responsible for 9/11? Did Saddam harbor terrorists? It is said that it is a special responsibility to wage war against terrorism! With a corollary that any state that harbors terrorists is a terrorist state and should be treated accordingly. - subject to bombardment and invasion? Has the US ever harbored terrorists and if so should they be invaded?
Was Saddam a despot? Did Saddam kill his own people? Did the US support Saddam even after the Iran war? Did the US support Saddam even after he gassed his own people? What was the US administration’s reasoning to continue their support of Saddam? Was it because it was in the interest of American business? Were Bush senior, Chaney, Powell, Rumsfeld all members of that administration? What changed between then and now with regards to Saddam’s despotism?
Is there a notion of Universality? All men are created equal and what is good and available to one is good and available to the other. In other words what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Or is it - “large nations do what they wish, while small nations accept what they must.” - Thucydides
What is the logical basis for “a moral upright war”? Is morality relative or absolute? Is morality tied to in someway to law? Is International law a valid basis, as used in the Nuremberg trails? Is preemptive war within International law? Or is it whomever has the power makes the law and all else is fancy words to make people feel noble.
Are the Spanish people any more surrender monkeys than say, the Iraqi people or even the American people for that matter? Are the Iraqi people not truly surrender monkeys? It might even be argued that the American people have surrendered to fear and given up both civil liberties and rubber stamped flimsy excuses for preemptive war in order to obtain a greater sense of security. It might even be argued that democracy is prevailing in Spain. The people of Spain did not want to engage in a war, which has clearly NOTHING to do with terrorism. They voted to oust the government that did not listen to their democratic voice. And BTW their new leader vowed to fight terrorism and not Iraqis. How is that giving into terrorism, it is just NOT giving into the US demands. Does that mean that “Those who are not for us are against us.” = everyone not bowing to US demands = for terrorism. Interesting logic.
Who is Karen Ryan? And what was her purpose?
Is it possible that an oligarchy using jingoism as a tool to achieving their aims is a reality or is it just a conspiracy theory?
What really is the use of these arguments? It might even be that it is impossible for balanced discussions to take place. Opposing parties are discussing from their relative perspectives, which often are as different as apples and oranges.
What is your perspective? Take the quiz to get somewhat of an idea.
http://search.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html
http://search.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
I do not believe that emotional accusations need to enter into a levelheaded logical discussion.
Facts might be stated with a given position as well as defenses for that position, however, being human, invariably emotion will well up and then everything goes to shit!
Some interesting questions:
What was the US’s justification for invading Iraq? WMD? Terrorism? The removal of a despot? All of the above?
Were WMD found in Iraq? Were facilities to manufacture WMD found? Are there farms and factories whose production could be converted to manufacture WMD located in Iraq? Are there people in the US who grow Caster Oil Plants? Should the US be invaded because said people might produce ricin? (Never mind that the US HAS WMD). If the US was in possession of WMD and they threatened or say even initiated hostilities towards another nations, should they be invaded? Did the US administration want to selectively believe the intelligence on Iraq’s WMD program? What about O’Neil’s claim that 10 days after the inauguration Bush said: “Go find me a way to do this” speaking about regime change and Saddam Hussein needing to go? Was selectively interpreting intelligence reports as testified by George Tenet the “way” Bush was talking about?
Was Saddam responsible for 9/11? Did Saddam harbor terrorists? It is said that it is a special responsibility to wage war against terrorism! With a corollary that any state that harbors terrorists is a terrorist state and should be treated accordingly. - subject to bombardment and invasion? Has the US ever harbored terrorists and if so should they be invaded?
Was Saddam a despot? Did Saddam kill his own people? Did the US support Saddam even after the Iran war? Did the US support Saddam even after he gassed his own people? What was the US administration’s reasoning to continue their support of Saddam? Was it because it was in the interest of American business? Were Bush senior, Chaney, Powell, Rumsfeld all members of that administration? What changed between then and now with regards to Saddam’s despotism?
Is there a notion of Universality? All men are created equal and what is good and available to one is good and available to the other. In other words what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Or is it - “large nations do what they wish, while small nations accept what they must.” - Thucydides
What is the logical basis for “a moral upright war”? Is morality relative or absolute? Is morality tied to in someway to law? Is International law a valid basis, as used in the Nuremberg trails? Is preemptive war within International law? Or is it whomever has the power makes the law and all else is fancy words to make people feel noble.
Are the Spanish people any more surrender monkeys than say, the Iraqi people or even the American people for that matter? Are the Iraqi people not truly surrender monkeys? It might even be argued that the American people have surrendered to fear and given up both civil liberties and rubber stamped flimsy excuses for preemptive war in order to obtain a greater sense of security. It might even be argued that democracy is prevailing in Spain. The people of Spain did not want to engage in a war, which has clearly NOTHING to do with terrorism. They voted to oust the government that did not listen to their democratic voice. And BTW their new leader vowed to fight terrorism and not Iraqis. How is that giving into terrorism, it is just NOT giving into the US demands. Does that mean that “Those who are not for us are against us.” = everyone not bowing to US demands = for terrorism. Interesting logic.
Who is Karen Ryan? And what was her purpose?
Is it possible that an oligarchy using jingoism as a tool to achieving their aims is a reality or is it just a conspiracy theory?
