| |
|
|
- Please refer to the Forum Rules Amended section for additional rules and modifications.
- This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
- Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
- All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
- Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
- No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
- Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Gunrights
Posts:674
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
 |
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 07/02/2007 10:49 PM |
|
The present situation in Iraq is regrettable, made even more so by the knowledge that it could be so much different if we only had a less corrupt and more competent administration at the helm. Also regrettable is the fact that Afghanistan, a society that could also be nurtured to maturity, will have to suffer because of American foreign policy decisions.
But to be frank, while such emotional appeals are interesting from a political perspective, we need to take a step back and realise that this sort of thing happens all over the world. I could post pictures of women in Saudi Arabia having acid thrown on their face for the crime of defying the will of their husbands for sex, or pictures of gays who have been beheaded, or thieves with the missing fingers or hands, or whatnot...Of course such imagery would be outrageous and repulsive, but since it takes place all over the world, we need to attempt to find the most constructive use of our power to end it. Iraq is not this: Iraq propagates it. Thus, while there is a temptation to stay in forever to end such horrors, if we are only perpetuating them, we defeat the purpose. |
|
|
|
|
Gunrights
Posts:674
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
|
| 07/03/2007 12:30 PM |
|
Zasch
I have tried to be patient with you because I have some understanding of the affliction from which you suffer. You see, I also was very much a leftist in my youth. I fully understand the arrogance of youth and therefore I have tried to cut you some slack. Unfortunately, your latest reply is so morally bankrupt, it is truly appalling. The murder of an entire village (including children) is not the same, as horrible as it is, as the tragedy which you list. Al Qaeda, is our sworn enemy. Although the left refuses to blame this evil itself, it is apparent to anyone with half a brain (how's that for an Ad Hominem attack) that these barbarians are not the result of anything that the West has done. You have to take the time to read their own words to gain an understanding of their mentality. It does no good to argue with you, because you seem unable to understand basic logic or reason. You are so full of yourself you are incapable of observing how absurd your arguments are. I knew fairly well a number of Iranian students who opposed the Shah. After the revolution, they all returned to Iran. I am sure most of them are dead now. People like you will be the first to be killed if these animals ever obtain power here. Since you and your ilk feel it necessary to enlighten us with your naivite' with every posting that I make, you have intimidated others who used to make comments. It is for them that I refuse to be silenced. What you say and do is not harmless. I have lived long enough to see the results of leftist thinking (like the estimated 1 million Vietnamese murdered) and the unbelievable slaughter which has occurred where ever Marxists have ruled. Recently, a monument to the 100 million victims of Communism was unveiled in DC. I am sure that all of this will wiz by your very limited intellect. There is no reasoning with you. Therefore, I am telling things like they are. You and your opinions are a waste of space and I only wish you would give them elsewhere instead of wasting all of our time and trying my patience. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 07/03/2007 4:00 PM |
|
You see, I also was very much a leftist in my youth
You seem to have defined "leftist" as being anyone who disagrees with you. Economically I tend toward classic liberalism, and socially I tend toward the maximisation of liberty. Neither of these are inherently leftist: The Republican Party itself used to espouse that it too was for the maximisation of liberty, especially with the so-called "Goldwater Republicans".
I fully understand the arrogance of youth and therefore I have tried to cut you some slack.
There is, of course, a certain arrogance to be had in youth, but to categorically dismiss all of my opinions as being wholly incorrect does not, on its face, appear to be the act of a humble intellect.
Unfortunately, your latest reply is so morally bankrupt
What do you specifically take issue with?
he murder of an entire village (including children) is not the same, as horrible as it is, as the tragedy which you list.
I'm sure you realise that this happens all the time, again, throughout the world. I recall the story of the Lord's Resistence Army, the name of a Christian terrorist group in Uganda. The human suffering that they have caused is truly shocking: Thousands upon thousands of people having been killed, with many more having basically their humanity stolen from them: Forced to kill people, or subject to torture or rape. I was particularly struck by the story of the "night commuters", children who must walk every night over 10 miles to larger cities in search of safety that they may avoid becoming victims in their sleep.
I'm sure you are aware of the ongoing Darfur conflict, which has likely killed 1/5 to 1/2 of a million people and resulted in over 2 million refugees. Even if we ignore the fact that there is a genocide going on, the resulting conditions have created a complete breakdown in infrastructure and human development. Disease has become rampant, as has starvation, and the lives of the survivors are going to be permanently marred by this until the day that they die.
In North Korea, it is not uncommon for the government to routinely round up families, entire neighbourhoods and ship them off to penal camps or to "hospitals" so that they may become the victims of state-sponsored medical experimentation. If anything happens in that country to make the government even somewhat suspicious, you are disappeared and the few reports that are able to come out of the country indicate that your life, and the lives of those who knew you, become essentially a living hell.
I could go on about Senegal, or Nigeria, or Congo, or Russia, or the Ivory Coast, or parts of India, or Thailand, or Palestine, or Colombia, or New Guinea, or Indonesia, or Burma, or Belarus, or Afghanistan, or any number of countries.
What is happening in Iraq is an outrage to human dignity, but it is by no means the only place that is experiencing suffering in the world.
that these barbarians are not the result of anything that the West has done.
It seems likely to me that American sponsored blowback, combined with the support for repressive regiemes that ultimately have no foundation in progressivism whatsoever, combined with a century of European imperial mismanagement, would seem to alter the political situation there somewhat.
You have to take the time to read their own words to gain an understanding of their mentality.
Their own words say that Western interference in Middle Eastern affairs is the reason they fight. Whether you should take that at face value is something up for debate, but if you are going to appeal to them in one circumstance, you need to affirm them in this one, too.
It does no good to argue with you, because you seem unable to understand basic logic or reason
If you like, you may present a reasoned analysis of why my logic fails (complete with exposing either its incongruence with the reality of the world or its own internal inconsistency) and, if you like, you may provide supporting evidence for your assertions both in the form of real world examples and of logical and philosophical support. I am not standing in your way in this regard.
People like you will be the first to be killed if these animals ever obtain power here.
I do deem this quite likely, since my own values system tends to place human dignity and freedom to be paramount, which is a fundamental disagreement with their values system.
I'm not entirely sure the relevance of this statement.
Since you and your ilk feel it necessary to enlighten us with your naivite' with every posting that I make,
And just whom would count as being a part of my "ilk"? Fiery Darts?
you have intimidated others who used to make comments.
I might cast a mighty shadow indeed if all I need do is speak in order to intimidate people! Indeed, I was not even particularly aware that so many others posted prior to my arrival. If you could provide their screennames, perhaps that will ease my confusion.
But regardless, my intention has never been to intimidate, but rather to seek a rational and civilised discussion on the issues. So far, it seems that I have recieved this: Fierty Darts and Mr. Mulholland and I have spoken on a variety of subjects and, while our disagreement on them persists, we can still communicate in a calm fashion with each other afterward.
It is for them that I refuse to be silenced.
As one who thoroughly enjoys discussion, I would never wish for you to be silenced in any manner.
I have lived long enough to see the results of leftist thinking (like the estimated 1 million Vietnamese murdered) and the unbelievable slaughter which has occurred where ever Marxists have ruled.
It is quite fortunate, then, that I am not a Marxist.
There is no reasoning with you.
In my perception, all I have seen here in this thread are continuous ad hominems that portray me as being stupid and irrational and equating my speech with the various crimes of communist states. You have failed to address my contention that our policies in Iraq are worsening the human rights situation there and you have failed to address my contention that, given the immense suffering of humans worldwide, we ought to pursue a rationally based policy in order to aleviate as much suffering as we possibly can.
If you have an argument against my positions, or in favour of yours, feel free to present it.
You and your opinions are a waste of space and I only wish you would give them elsewhere instead of wasting all of our time and trying my patience.
It seems to me that you would rather insulate your views from critical analysis.
At such time that the owner of this website requests that I discontinue using his property (in the form of this forum), I will comply with the request. However, as long as I am welcome on his website, and as long as you continue to expose your views for public analysis and discussion, I will participate in the public discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Gunrights
Posts:674
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
|
| 07/03/2007 6:47 PM |
|
Your argument was that terrible things happen all over the world. We are not at war all over the world. We are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Major Media constantly ignore anything positive that our military accomplishes there and exaggerates any mistakes or crimes committed their by our troops and for the most part ignores the terrible crimes committed by our enemies. Your original argument which I was responding was that yes this was a terrible thing, then went on to list individual acts which were not of any equal comparison. This to me was morally reprehensible and representative of moral relativism. What exactly was your contribution. That we shouldn't be emotional . Well, I am very emotional about children being murdered. I am assuming that your are a graduate student. I am correct? Why don't you start your own blog? Then we can all be exposed to your great insights. What I do know, is that it is easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize. To snipe. What I am increasingly frustrated by is when I do make an argument it is ignored, like you just did. All you did was change the criterion or site different issues. Darfur is different than honor killings. Can your little mind grasp that? And the horrors of Darfur are truly outrageous. Does that in any way lessen the previous article? Are you aware that Democratic leaders are arguing that the Iraq war doesn't involve Al Qaeda? What both Bin Laden and Zaraqawi state is that Iraq is the central theater of war against the West. The Major Media ignore this. They have done everything in their power to undermine the will of the American People in supporting our war effort. If we leave Iraq, do you not think that there will be a blood bath and that it won't encourage the Islamic Fascists immensely?
I have a great idea. Why don't you inform us all what our corrupt administration should have done differently! I would love to here your twenty twenty hindsight. How would you prosecute the war from here? Or do you believe in the cut and run crowd? Please elucidate us all. I breathlessly await your stunning insights. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 07/04/2007 3:33 AM |
|
We are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And yet our presence in Iraq is serving as a destabilising factor in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and across the world. Our presence has created a human development situation that was not there before, and the descent into instability threatens the welfare of the Iraqi people and strengthens Iran, our real enemy here.
The Major Media constantly ignore anything positive that our military accomplishes there and exaggerates any mistakes or crimes committed their by our troops and for the most part ignores the terrible crimes committed by our enemies.
As has already been pointed out, it isn't particularly the job of the media to constantly point out that our enemies are bad people - we know this already. It isn't, in fact, news that Al Qaeda is made up of people who want to do bad things to us.
Our media is here to help us critically examine ourselves. If we do bad things in violation of the spirit of our nation, that IS news, and must be reported.
This to me was morally reprehensible and representative of moral relativism
Then you have a misunderstanding of what moral relativism actually is. Moral relativism is not the philosophy by which different acts are given different moral weight depending upon their relationship to core values - that is simply moral ethics. Moral relativism is the philosophy by which moral propositions are not asserted to have a truth value independent of all human perception, but rather either a truth value contingent upon the affectional states of the observer in question, or a truth value of false, or no truth value whatsoever.
To point out that bad things happen in other places is not moral relativism in the slightest.
That we shouldn't be emotional . Well, I am very emotional about children being murdered.
What I'm saying is that we shouldn't let our emotions cloud our reasoning. Obviously we have to let our morality guide our actions, and our morality says that children being murdered is bad. Assuming for the moment that our presence in Iraq has, in fact, led to more children being murdered, then it would logically flow that the action is not consistent with our greater moral goals.
Children are murdered every day across the whole of the globe. Our goal, as the superpower, should be to help as many as we can.
I am correct?
No.
Why don't you start your own blog?
I have petitioned for such.
What I do know, is that it is easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize.
This is not an argument against the criticisms itself, but rather an argument as to the "burden" on the person making the argument, which is irrelevant, and an ad hominem.
What I am increasingly frustrated by is when I do make an argument it is ignored, like you just did.
If you believe I have ignored some argument of yours, in any thread, feel free to clearly restate the argument and demand that I answer.
Darfur is different than honor killings. Can your little mind grasp that?
Yes. However, my little mind is having difficulty grasping the relevance of this statement at all.
Does that in any way lessen the previous article?
It does not at all lessen the moral negativity of the previous article. However, it can be used to demonstrate that our efforts to combat immorality are maybe best served if we undertake a different course of action.
Are you aware that Democratic leaders are arguing that the Iraq war doesn't involve Al Qaeda?
I am not aware of this. I am aware that the Democratic leaders have argued that the Iraq War did not have anything to do with Al Qaeda, which is mostly true.
What both Bin Laden and Zaraqawi state is that Iraq is the central theater of war against the West.
It is a theatre that we are not particularly winning.
They have done everything in their power to undermine the will of the American People in supporting our war effort.
All the polls show that the "will of the American people" is against this war.
If we leave Iraq, do you not think that there will be a blood bath and that it won't encourage the Islamic Fascists immensely?
And if we stay, not only do we slowly bleed money and power into Iraq, and not only do we essentially forfeit Afghanistan entirely, but we strengthen the Islamic insurgency across the whole of the Middle East, we strenghten the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we weaken our ability to do anything else anywhere else in the world.
Why don't you inform us all what our corrupt administration should have done differently!
Well, the administration should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.
Assuming it does:
The administration should have used a far larger force for both going into Iraq and maintaining the peace there. The Administration should have pursued a more multinational policy. The Administration should have made the process for contracts or what not in Iraq far more competitive and transparent (as the lack of both has led to mismanagement and massive waste for both the American and Iraqi people). The Administration should have accepted that the Iraq war was not going well, and began to draw up plans to restore integrity to Iraq, rather than be tied up in rhetoric and insulate itself from the realities of the situation. The Administration should not have in any way diverted attention away from Afghanistan. The Administration should not have pursued hardline rhetoric, but rather followed a policy of realpolitik. The Administration should not have entirely destroyed the previous administration and thus create a vacuum for insurgency. The Administration should have fully funded and prepared our troops for war. The Administration should have focused on creating proper conditions for Iraqi law enforcement, the Administration should not have disbanded the Iraqi National Army, the Administration should not have solely applied neoliberal policies to Iraq, the Administration should have brought in more Arabic speaking translators in the military, the Administration should have drawn up plans for sectarian violence prior to entering Iraq,
I breathlessly await your stunning insights.
Were I the Administration, I would not have gone into Iraq at all, and would have focused my efforts wholly on Afghanistan.
Assuming that we were in Iraq, I would pursue a policy by which I would attempt to create the most secure environment for Iraqis (a combination of attempting to seal the borders, though this is an impossible task, and martial law), I would begin an immidiate direct-aid program such that they may all get food (since the availibility of food resources is the most important factor in determining stability). I would begin direct investment in the economy to rebuild infrastructure, and I would set up a system by which corporations operating in the United States would get tax breaks for operating in Iraq, however I would favour no company and would not set up "no bid contracts" for any purposes other than emergency purposes, and I would insist upon strong Congressional oversight of all contracts. I would begin a program by which the Iraqi banking system is initially administered and backed by the American government, such that capitalism may begin to take hold in Iraq and hopefully result in the creation of a domestic bourgeoisie. I would pursue policies by which the three groups in Iraq have significant autonomy in their own affairs and significant influence over the national government. The number of troops in Iraq would number
Until such time that a proper free market economy can be set up, I would utilise a planned economy in order to maintian what infrastructure there is, to build new infrastructure, and to help stem professionals from leaving the country (with the United States making direct capital investments without the expectation of being repaid or the expectation of profit), though I would still allow for Iraqi driven free market activity (as the US has enough capital that such centralisation of the economy is not required). After the human development situation has reached a certain point, control of various projects would be handed over to private industries or local municipalities.
Everything that I would do in Iraq dealing with money would be done on the basis of grants, and the US would not expect anything in return. The point is to get the Iraqi economy up and stable and providing for its people, not for the US to profit or even recover losses.
Before going in, I would have begun either forming "police divisions" that would be sent into Iraq, or (less desirable) attempt to train US troops in law enforcement tactics, since I would recognise that the law enforcement situation would entirely collapse and depend wholly upon US troops. I would focus on strengthening Iraqi police units on a local level. I would ensure that US troops are using the most advanced technology availible especially for their own defence.
I would not neglect Afghanistan in the slightest. I would not close foreign policy options through rhetoric or whatever.
How about you? |
|
|
|
|
Gunrights
Posts:674
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
|
| 07/04/2007 9:47 AM |
|
In case you have forgotten we are at war with Al Qaeda and they have promised to destroy us. That is the whole point of mentioning their brutality. Again, you prove my point without even understanding that you have. I fully understand the definition of moral relativism. Comparing the slaughter of a whole village with throwing acid in the face of a woman. Your argument can be summed up as follow. Yes, terrible things happen. What happen to that village is not that different with other things which occur in Muslim states (which you didn't define). That to me is moral relativism. You see my friend, we view the world through a different prism. No point could be clearer that that of the press. While I think their primary duty is to objectively report events, so the public can make reasoned decisions you think it clearly differently. We talk pass each other because of that, I no longer see it worthwhile to debate you because of that. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 07/04/2007 1:38 PM |
|
That is the whole point of mentioning their brutality.
So then why again are we in Iraq?
Muslim states (which you didn't define).
Thats because bad things happen in non-muslim states as well.
I fully understand the definition of moral relativism.
That to me is moral relativism.
You say that you understand it, but your supposed retelling of the definition demonstrates that you do not. Again, moral relativism asserts some determination about moral statements such that it claims that no moral statement has an objective truth value. This has basically nothing to do with comparing events in the world. As BBC puts it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4460673.stm
I would request that you demonstrate to me how bringing up events that happen around the world logically leads to affirming that morality is relative.
While I think their primary duty is to objectively report events, so the public can make reasoned decisions you think it clearly differently.
A strawman argument is one that takes a caricatured and corrupted interpretation of the argument made by the opponent, demolishes it, and then claims that the original argument was defeated. It is fallacious because ultimately, in corrupting the opponent's line of reasoning, it does not actually address the reasoning specifically and is instead an irrelevant tangent.
In this case, you are taking my statement "the media ought to report on our human rights abuses more because that is news, whereas human rights abuses by our opponents are not", and corrupting it into "the media ought not report things objectively, because I oppose the public making reasoned decisions". Seeing as how the second does not flow from the first (either deductively or inductively), we can then classify your statement as a strawman, and thus reject it as being irrelevant to the debate.
I no longer see it worthwhile to debate you because of that.
This is, of course, your choice. For the record, I would point out that you have failed to respond to all of the following:
Contention 1: The invasion of Iraq destabilised the region, resulting in human suffering.
Contention 2: We ought to pursue a reasoned foreign policy such that we may reduce the overall suffering in the world.
Contention 3: The American people have turned against the war.
Contention 4: Staying in Iraq weakens us and strengthens our enemies, such as Iran.
Contention 5: Afghanistan is severely negatively affected by the war in Iraq.
Contentions 6-18: Relating to the Administration's handling of Iraq.
Contentions 19-x: Relating to how I would have dealt with Iraq.
And for some things I don't particularly care about, but that were raised nonetheless:
You have failed to relate your charge of me being a Marxist to the debate, you have failed to even demonstrate that assertion, you failed to demonstrate that my presence "intimidates" others, you failed to address the point about Al Qaeda itself saying US foreign policy has caused the situation, and you have failed to clarify what you consider to be the moral bankruptcy of my original reply.
You did reply to my attack against you regarding moral relativism, but that attack has failed as it is not cogruent with the commonly accepted definition and thus loses its meaning without further clarification. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|