leejo

No he's arguing that "the war in Iraq has accomplished little" is a misstatement because it has accomplished quite a lot. Freedom for its people, for example.

Calling straw man in this forum is like calling foul in an inner city pick-up game, anyway.

SmokingTarpan

I believe he's arguing against the idea of "my way is the best way, so you're going to follow it." That's not only dangerous and naive, but counter to our own values that respect the choice of the people.

I don't need to have a PhD and to have worked in law/economics for 50 years to understand people forcing their ideas upon others is wrong. Perhaps democracy and capitilism are the best ways to run a nation. Introduce the ideas, and if they take hold, great. But if the people (and not just JoeBob saying that he wants to be able to murder and steal freely) of another country disagree with that, we shouldn't be saying "too bad, you're wrong, do what we say" and using our military to back it up. If for nothing else, we shouldn't be doing that simply because karma is a bitch, and one day someone will do the same thing to us.

Note: this is not a comment on what we're doing in Iraq at the moment.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

Phantom

Very nice Tarpan. And personally I think that it does apply to what is going on in Iraq.

__________________

leejo

Waaaaa straw man! I never said that forcing ideas upon others is wrong. Forum police!

But, yes, you do need a PhD and the experience to make statements like "their position is naive" as if it were fact.

Any citizen can make statements about what he or she *thinks*. Lord knows we all do. My point is that folks need to get in the habit of distinguishing between what they *think*, or what their *opinion* may be, and what is fact. This distinction should be made both in their communication and in their own thinking.

Word. Personally I like the model of the UN: get someone else to pay the bills, have them provide the material and bodies to enforce policy, and I get to make all the decisions. Yes, the UN works great unless you're the one paying the bills or providing the troops.

Who's saying "too bad, you're wrong, do what we say?" Is it the USA, or is it the UN?

In every organization of which I've been a part - a real org., not some academic exercise - he who pays the bills calls the shots. The top dog salesman gets to do as he pleases, e.g. If you get in his way, you get run over. Why? Because he pays all the bills.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's how it is. See the connection?

Steeler

No, RandomGuy had it right. Cingular said I must think people being free is a bad thing, which is silly. That's like saying I hate America.

Regarding the level of progress in Iraq and whether or not the people there are "free," we're just going to have to disagree on that, Cing. If you are looking for daily analysis of the political situation in Iraq, www.juancole.com is a good place to start, although by no means limit yourself to that site - there are many resources available. Cole is a Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan and has a pretty good bead on what is going on in Iraq. As you can see, he has some qualifications to comment on the issue. I don't always agree with him, and I prefer to hear other points of view on the subject, but his blog is a good start.

Because I couldn't possibly disagree with the President on substantive issues of my own consideration. No, I'm a dupe of the liberal media. I just parrot back anything printed in the New York Times and am incapable of forming my own opinion on objective data. I have no will of my own. Oh, thank you for showing me the depth of my plight! Thank you from rescuing me from this dark prison of Micheal Moore's devising!

Coming to any forum, I have always taken, as a matter of courtesy, that any positions expressed by any poster are his or her own. I never assume that any poster is not in command of his own opinion or that he is a slave to some other entity, say Rush Limbaugh. The least you could do is grant me that same courtesy.

Then I shall elaborate. I am an American citizen with a college degree and an interest in history and world events. I read newspapers and books and am capable of independent thought. Based upon the history I know, based upon my knowledge of current events, based upon my understanding of human nature, based upon the reasons I already outlined in a previous post IN MY OPINION it is naive to think that any nation, even our own, can successfully establish a global hegemony over a modern, industrialized world. Attempting to do so will most likely result in economic upheaval, violent backlash, and the withering of American power in the current global climate.

Oh, and it's also morally wrong. Thank you, Tarpan.

Just for the record, leejo, the next time you comment on matters of faith, I want to see a copy of your seminary degree so I can accurately judge your qualifications. And evolution? You better be a professional biologist.

__________________

leejo

I think you'll find, if you have a careful eye, that I am pretty clear in distinguishing between what I think, my opinions, and facts. It is a fact that I put a lot of conscious effort into making those distinctions. I challenge you to do the same.

I don't have to have a degree in anything to state my opinion or my thoughts on a subject. Neither do you. But you owe it to yourself and others to be clear in this regard.

Chill out. I'm not trying to insult you or knock your ideas down, but I am ( and will!) call attention to the distinction between facts and ideas.

Steeler

Where have I conflated fact with opinion? I said I think the position of PNAC is naive, and I explained why I think that. That is my opinion.

__________________

SmokingTarpan

Hmm. My apologies, I didn't mean to direct that at you; should have worded that better. That's what I get for posting to forums early in the morning. Or mid-morning, as the case may be.

In essence though, isn't the politician with the PhD simply stating their opinion as well, and not fact? Saying "democracy works for us, so you need to do it too, it is the only (best) way", in my opinion, is naive because there are obviously other forms that work. Trying to state as fact something that is subjective, such as a social system, seems silly and dangerous to me; especially if someone is willing to disregard what others want in the equation.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

leejo

Yes. If you're lucky. As often as not, they're just lying.

And that, my friends, is a fact.

Buck Fush

I think that followers who support with blind faith whatever candidate their party puts forward are quick to just accuse people of "being on the other side". What you need to realize is that there are some people who are free-thinkers and can actually form their own opinion; not have it delivered to them by their party or favorite radio personality. Just because one disagrees with something Bush does, doesn't mean they're a Bush-hater.
Case in point:
1) I agree with a lot of Bush's fiscal policies.
2) I voted for Bush in 2000.

I grew to dislike Bush based on his actions.

How 'bout you? What was the last right thing a Democrat did? Who was the last good Democratic president?

I think there are a lot of very intelligent people on this forumn, especially considering it's just a gamer forum, and I think you're dismissing the views of one of the more intelligent ones rather easily.

And, for the record, life experience is worth 10 PHDs. Oh no, did I state that as fact? Oh well, I'm sure any intelligent person will read that and know it's just my opinion.

leejo

I voted for Gore in 2000. I grew to like Bush based on his actions. And grew to dispise Gore based on his.

Who was the last good Democratic president? I used to think Clinton until all the agencies turned out to be shell games and his policies proved to be so horrible. And he shamed himself and his office. Before that? Truman.

The last right thing a democrat did? That's easy: Zell Miller sticking up for Bush, Ed Koch sticking up for Bush, etc. There are plenty of good democrats, but the party is being run by some real yahoos right now.

You think I'm dismissing someone's views rather easily, Mr. Buck Fush, and then close with "I'm sure any intelligent person will read that and know it's just my opinion." How am I supposed to interpret that? I think that it's a smart-assed, disrespectful, and unnecessarily antagonistic remark meant to imply that I'm not blessed with your approval. I believe that you have personally dismissed others' ideas as being the result of watching Fox, or listening to Rush, or...You choose an online name like Buck Fush and expect anyone to take your views seriously as if you were carefully analyzing the data as it comes in? As if you'd left your mind open? By your own admission (the name) you've narrowed your view and decided to entrench your thinking. Don't lecture me about who's blindly following what.

Steeler

Ooh, that gave me a warm fuzzy, thank you.

__________________

leejo

You did? I read tossed out without any supporting evidence or exaplanation of why you thought the way you did. Am I eating crazy pills?

Steeler

Evidently. Brand name, no less. None of that cheap generic Candian crap.

I would have thought it was pretty explicit that calling someone or something naive is a statement of opinion, not verifiable fact, since "naive" is a completely subjective term. I went on to explain why I think it's naive in my next post after you challenged me on it.

I could just as easily demand that you prove this statement as fact:
I'm curious as to why you believe that the agencies were shell games and his policies were wrong, but I understand that it is just your opinion. I'm assuming you have the facts to support that position.

We can argue semantics and points of order all you like but you still haven't rebutted any of the larger subjects at hand. Is it right to pursue a pax americana? Is the war in Iraq really helping our overall global interests? I'd rather talk about that than fight over third grade stuff like the difference between a fact and an opinion.

__________________

leejo

Touche!

9/11 commission has found great fault with the FBI and CIA and has reported extensively on their shortcomings. That's what I was referring to with the shell game comment. His policies, it seems in retrospect and with the 9/11 event to put things in perspective, seem to have been driven more by politics than anything else. I understand that all Presidents are political animals - supremely so - but one of the things that I do respect about President Bush is that he's proven himself willing to stick with unpopular decisions when he believes them to be the right thing and the best course on which to lead the country. I can't think of anything Clinton did that wasn't calculated to earn cool points.

I do support Pax Americana. My vision of the future is one in which all people on earth enjoy the protections outlined in our Bill of Rights and have a representative government. If we achieve that through diplomatic means or simply by example, great. We should be patient. But when confronted by serious threats to our national security and interests, I don't mind using military force at all.

I was thinking that the really interesting thing about Cindy Sheehan isn't Cindy Sheehan, but how polarizing a figure she really is: any discussion about her isn't about her is it? She's a poor woman who's sorta lost it. The bigger issue is one's opinion of President Bush, the war in Iraq, and the larger GWOT.