Anti-War FAQ

[Menchise]

America's Role Part 2 has gone off on so many tangents that I've decided to start a spin-off thread to clarify the debate.

Obviously, the theme of this thread is an anti-war FAQ. It's long, but a good read.

[Guest]

Not only is it long, but a I wasted 20 minutes reading the pacifist piece of garbage.

Give me a break, we are taking Saddam out, end of story, and no amount of whining is going to stop it.

If the UN does not do something, WE WILL.

Like I said, Whine all you want, but it's gonna happen, so DEAL WITH IT!!

[Raven]

Oh dear, my poor eyes. I have to go with Jag on this one; I spent about 12 minutes reading the first part of it myself, and gag me with a spoon! It's an extended bit of leftist wining about the US doing "contemptible" things, as if it really mattered. It's our governments responsibility to do what's in our (the citizens) best interest, nothing more and nothing less. If that means a little foreign suffering, well, I'm hardly one to complain (hell, if it means domestic suffering I probably would complain either).

[DraconisRex]

More like gag me with a pitchfork! I spent about 2 minutes scanning it, and decided it was biased and very long-winded. Yuck!

To all of our Allies: I'm telling you, when the bombs start falling, you'd best duck and cover!

quote:

---

Freedom in America is back!

Saddam will be leaving Iraq!

So, if if he wants to play 'god-of-war,'

Takin' him out won't even be a chore!

Cuz We won't tolerate his [bEEP!] no more!

- Noel Christopher, 9/11/2002

---

[ 11-07-2002, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]

[Guest]

This is what president Bush said this afternoon in his press conference today.

quote:

---

Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, you've said many times that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, he will be disarmed militarily, if necessary, by the U.N. or the U.S. and others. There's a school of thought that says that going to war against Iraq would be a dangerous and misguided idea because it would generate a tremendous amount of anger and hatred at the United States, and out of that you'd essentially be creating many new terrorists who would want to kill Americans. What's wrong with that analysis?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's like saying we should not go after al Qaeda because we might irritate somebody and that would create a danger to Americans. My attitude is you got to deal with terrorism in a firm way. And if they see threats you deal with them in all different kinds of ways. The only way, in my judgment, to deal with Saddam Hussein is to bring the international community together to convince him to disarm.

But if he's not going to disarm, we'll disarm him, in order to make the world a more peaceful place. And some people aren't going to like that -- I understand. But some people won't like it if he ends with a nuclear weapon and uses it. We have an obligation to lead. And I intend to assume that obligation to make the world more peaceful.

Terry, listen, there's risk in all action we take. But the risk of inaction is not a choice, as far as I'm concerned. The inaction creates more risk than doing our duty to make the world more peaceful. And obviously, I weighed all the consequences about all the differences. Hopefully, we can do this peacefully -- don't get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there's a chance he may decide to do that.

And war is not my first choice, don't -- it's my last choice.

But nevertheless, it is a -- it is an option in order to make the world a more peaceful place.

---

War is not his first choice, did you all see that?

HELLO, wake up peaceniks, you are WAY behind the times.

And then this of course.

quote:

---

Judy.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said this afternoon that the U.N. Security Council vote tomorrow would bring the civilized world together against Iraq. But broad opposition remains all over the world to your policy. Will you continue to try to build support and, if so, how will you do that? Or do you think that a Security Council vote would be all the mandate you need?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, broad opposition around the world not in support of my policy on Iraq?

Q Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think most people around the world realize that Saddam Hussein is a threat. And they -- no one likes war, but they also don't like the idea of Saddam Hussein having a nuclear weapon. Imagine what would happen. And by the way, we don't know how close he is to a nuclear weapon right now. We know he wants one. But we don't know. We know he was close to one at one point in time; we have no idea today. Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon. Imagine how the Israeli citizens would feel. Imagine how the citizens in Saudi Arabia would feel. Imagine how the world would change, how he could alter diplomacy by the very presence of a nuclear weapon.

And so a lot of people -- serious people around the world are beginning to think about that consideration. I think about it a lot. I think about it particularly in the regard of making the world a more peaceful place.

And so it's very important for people to realize the consequences of us not taking the case to the U.N. Security Council. People need to think about what would happen if the United States had remained silent on this issue and just hoped for a change of his attitude, or maybe hoped that he would not invade somebody again, or just hoped that he wouldn't use gas on his own people when pressure at home began to mount.

I'm not willing to take those kind of risks. People understand that. I think a lot of people are saying, you know, gosh, we hope we don't have war. I feel the same way, I hope we don't have war. I hope this can be done peacefully. It's up to Saddam Hussein, however, to make that choice.

I also want to remind you that, should we have to use troops, should it become a necessity in order to disarm him, the United States, with friends, will move swiftly with force to do the job. You don't have to worry about that. We will do -- we will do -- we will do what it takes militarily to succeed.

I also want to say something else to people of Iraq, that the generals in Iraq must understand clearly there will be consequences for their behavior. Should they choose, if force is necessary, to behave in a way that endangers the lives of their own citizens, as well as citizens in the neighborhood, there will be a consequence. They will be held to account.

And as to the Iraq people, what I said before -- the Iraqi people can have a better life than the one they have now. They can have a -- there are other alternatives to somebody who is willing to rape and

mutilate and murder in order to stay in power. There's just a better life than the one they have to live now.

I think the people of the world understand that too, Judy.

I don't take -- I don't take -- I don't spend a lot of time taking polls around the world to tell me what I think is the right way to act; I've just got to know how I feel. I feel strongly about freedom. I feel strongly about liberty. And I feel strongly about the obligation to make the world a more peaceful place. And I take those responsibilities really seriously.

---

Like a breath of fresh air!!

So nice to have an adult in charge!!

[ 11-07-2002, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Guest Grayfox]

does the UN ever do anything useful???

i took about as long as rex before i decided it was propogandist garbage. saddam needs taking out, and since the UN is to cowardly to do anything about it, we will... next stop north korea.

now some of you in the military may be questioning why we are doing what we are doing... surely you dont want to be sent to your deaths doing something you dont understand right??? did we fully understand bosnia/herzegovina? i sure as hell didnt. all i knew was that one race was trying to exterminate the other, and while the UN piddle assed around with their decision making, we took action...

in haiti the same thing was occuring. a mad dictator was systematically eliminating his potential enemies much as stalin did. we were sent in to remove him from office and replace him with a more diplomatic democratic president.

somolia was the only one i disagreed about... our "objective" was to remove adid and that was it... what no one seemed to understand was that once adid was gone, another like him would take his place, and the same shit would happen...

alas there is genocide all over... saddam is doing it to his people, just as adid did it to his, and milosevic was doing to the ethnic albanians. the fact that saddam also has the ability to make a nuclear weapon is equally as frightneing... remove the head of the snake before it has a chance to strike.

[Lotharr]

Menchise you are speaking to people committed to ethnocentrism, hubris inspired foreign policy, and fundamentalist doctrine you can trace back to the crusades. I understand and salute your efforts...our republic deserves the candor....even if we can't get it from our ÔÇ£leadersÔÇØ.

For these people to even consider the merits of the ideas presented, entire systems of thought, ideologies, and even personality makeups have to be called into question..what do you think is easier? To watch a war against evil on CNN or delve into what it truly means to be an American(war inthreetwo.one.)

Boo hoo.dissent is not un-American.nationalism killed more then dissent ever did.

[DraconisRex]

Leaders... I've heard of leaders.... Wasn't that what was supposed to have replaced the quart in our English Measurement System...?

The Green Berets have a motto: "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of my way!" I feel the same thing about the United Nations, which is no more than a set of regulations put upon the United States -> The land of the free? If the UN wants to be a world power, then its members need to start acting like adults, not assinine children who want their way, only their way, and they'll take your candy bar ah-way if you don't keep an eye on them.....

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

not assinine children who want their way, only their way, and they'll take your candy bar ah-way if you don't keep an eye on them.....

---

Who are you talking about?

Who pay's $1.50 for gas when ecological reality puts the cost much higher?

Who exports the most pollution....(and jobs)?

Who dictates policy at the end of a broken bottle

[CommanderJohnson]

I'll take a quote from the article Menchise posted:

quote:

---

C17. Do the American people support a war against Iraq?

Yes and no. If asked do you support the United States preventing Iraq from killing you or your parents or your children, or indeed from killing even just those people who live in New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco, a considerable majority of Americans will most certainly say yes.

On the other hand, if they are asked, should the United States blast Iraq ‑- a country it has already devastated for over a dozen years with hundreds of thousands of casualties -- into the dark ages, with countless further victims -- in order to make the point that we are callous enough and violent enough to do it -- and to steal for ourselves direct control over the resources of another country, it is reasonable to guess that a considerable majority of Americans would say no.

Currently, as we write, reports suggest that about 70% of the British population, by polls, opposes the war plans, despite the British government being the only one in the world solidly behind Bush. This is very interesting. Two things seem to explain the British being more anti‑war than Americans. One, the planes that crashed into buildings on 9-11 didn't do so in London. And two, there is in Britain a mass-circulation press which is conveying actual truths and morally civilized reactions to the on‑going events, more widely than these are being conveyed in the U.S. Reaction in the U.S. is definitely behind. But it is also catching up.

C18. Why does the U.S. government want to go to war against Iraq?

Because Iraq's leader is not in Washington's hip pocket anymore, where he was, when Washington liked him quite a lot, while he was committing his worst crimes.

Because underneath Iraq is the world's second largest reserve of oil, which the U.S. government would like to control, particularly given the instability of Saudi subservience.

Because around the world are country after country who are suffering the accumulating damage of corporate globalization and being pressured by their populations to extricate from the American Empire's hold over their policies, and waging violent destruction on Iraq sends a very loud message regarding just how high the price will be for extrication from U.S. domination.

Because anything remotely resembling a legal and moral approach to international problems is ridiculed and rejected by U.S. elites because legal and moral approaches to international problems would, in case after case, lead to outcomes contrary to their agendas and interests.

And because intense focus on Iraq is serviceable to Bush and Co. seeking to divert attention from the condition of the U.S economy and corporate corruption leading up to the November U.S. elections, and hoping to undermine social spending that is strongly favored by the population, in the interest of tax cuts for the rich, which is strongly opposed by the population.

---

1. Popularity doesn't determine right/wrong. I don't care if every other person in the world said attacking Iraq was a bad idea, if the information about Iraq i've been hearing is true, it's a good idea.

2. If you asked Americans if you think allowing oppressive regimes that torture and kill their people and give them no rights is something we should allow to happen if we can stop it, i'm guessing a vast majority would say NO, WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW IT.

As for Saddam:

1. We liked Iraq when he wasn't a threat. The fact we used to like him, maybe even support him, is NOT an argument why we shouldn't STOP HIM NOW. What's wrong with nations being in our hip pocket? At least then there isn't a danger of them doing things that are going to hurt us. What kind of logic is the author using? Nations NOT being with us is a good thing? He must wanna commit suicide.

2. Tax cuts for the rich just make it fair. Why should the rich be punished for their success? Besides, that's just typical democrat rhetoric, the tax cuts are equal for EVERYONE. If one group pays MORE taxes, they should naturally be saving MORE money from a tax cut. It's unjust to only give the cuts to SOME and not to all.

3. Oil? Globalization? I'm sorry, there is no alternative, and it makes no sense that a war on Iraq would HELP our "oil interests". It'd probably just flood the market, driving down demand and making companies lose money.

And to bring the topic a LOT more on subject since people aren't very good at responding:

quote:

---

Saddam is:

1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them

2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements

3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons

4. Anti-America

5. A totalitarian dictator

6. Irrational in terms of international actions

7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons

8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers)

Saddam is probably:

1. Developing Nuclear Weapons

2. Supporting terrorism against the United States

I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about.

---

If we want to keep the discussion moving, please respond to that and to my 4th to last post on the America's Role 2 Topic , that lists why my arguments still apply. It's irrelevent why we attack Iraq, it'll still be solving all the problems.

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

War is not his first choice, did you all see that?

---

Yeah, finally changed his tune. It was his first choice at the start if you remember.

quote:

---

HELLO, wake up peaceniks, you are WAY behind the times.

---

See above. I don't want to accept the label of "peacenik" but I will point out I predicted this long ago.

So far as the mention of creating more terrorism for ourselves (in jag's quoted article) I feel we should take it "into account". It shouldn't dictate our actions but then again we shouldn't anger the whole world.

quote:

---

If the UN wants to be a world power, then its members need to start acting like adults, not assinine children who want their way, only their way, and they'll take your candy bar ah-way if you don't keep an eye on them

---

But Draconis, that's how countries routinely deal with each other. Like a bunch of three year olds. Haven't you noticed this? I am beginning to more and more.

Remember the china warplane incident? We were snooping a bit and they tried a sillly move and their guy died. It was a huge furor. China was mad for weeks if I remember. In the end we didn't actually apologize but expressed sorrow their guy died and I think that settled it.

Somehow I now think Iraq is gonna wind up the same way. It's gonna cause a big stink but will die quickly.

[Menchise]

Rather than merely spewing a blanket statement that the whole thing is "pacifist propaganda" (which I think you only claim to be so because it's leftist), why don't you try responding to the points that the article makes? I appreciate Dredd for being the only person so far who has done this, and I will respond in time.

[Guest Grayfox]

well you see... therin lies the problem... its not really worth talking about unless you have nothing better to do on a thursday night.

quote:

---

For these people to even consider the merits of the ideas presented, entire systems of thought, ideologies, and even personality makeups have to be called into question..what do you think is easier? To watch a war against evil on CNN or delve into what it truly means to be an American(war inthreetwo.one.)

---

no how about something that isnt written in cryptic leftist propoganda jargon??? i feel the sudden need to play the violin because my heart is bleeding out here...(sic)

be sure to write when your over in iraq...

and i seriously doubt you do you do know what it means to be an american... i seriously do.

and as for the "author" of this little "faq" he needs to pull his head out of his ass. calling what we do contemptible??? i suppose milosovic slaughtering thousands of ethnic albanians wasnt contemptable??? or the fact that adid took by force and my murder food that was sent to save his people just so he could still hold his leash on them... but no thats not contemptable... only what america does is contemptible...

and i suppose his buddy saddam gassing and killing a few thousand of his people wasnt contemtible either... what the hell is it going to take to get you bleeding hearts to pull your head out of your asses??? saddam launching a nuke at us???? itll be a bit late then... what if he launches one at australia??? or canada??? would any of you from those countries like to live in a nice quiet neighborhood for the next 1000 years???

youll probably ***** then that america was contemptible for not doing anything... my ass. we are going to take care of this problem once and for all. call us contemtible if you want, but we're saving your asses from turning day-glo green, because NATO is too weak and too fragmented to do a damn thing about it.

[ 11-07-2002, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotharr:

quote:

---

not assinine children who want their way, only their way, and they'll take your candy bar ah-way if you don't keep an eye on them.....

---

Who are you talking about?

---

I was talking about the UN Representatives. They remind me of bad kids in Junior High. Oops! Gotta be 'politically-correct" here! Middle School. Based on average test-score coast-to-coast, it's more like Muddle School....

About the $1.50 for gas.... Try pricing that overseas, and get back to me on the average costs compared to the US....

[ 11-08-2002, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's like saying we should not go after al Qaeda because we might irritate somebody and that would create a danger to Americans...Terry, listen, there's risk in all action we take. But the risk of inaction is not a choice, as far as I'm concerned. The inaction creates more risk than doing our duty to make the world more peaceful...People need to think about what would happen if the United States had remained silent on this issue and just hoped for a change of his attitude, or maybe hoped that he would not invade somebody again, or just hoped that he wouldn't use gas on his own people when pressure at home began to mount.

---

These and more quotes from the speech that Jaguar contributes to the debate are examples of one of the most common fallacies of critical thinking: the false dilemma. Bush is trying to spread the lie that people who oppose an invasion of Iraq believe in doing nothing. The false dilemma: support Bush's plan, or support inaction. It's illogical and misleading.

quote:

---

Popularity doesn't determine right/wrong.

---

Of course not. If that were the case I would be agreeing with you, since I'm in the minority here.

The point that's being made in the first two paragraphs of C17 is that American support for the war depends on the type of questions that are being asked. The Bush administration likes to use the former question rather than the latter, since the former is an effective fearmongering tool and the latter would illuminate the consequences of the action, which the Bush administration omits.

The point that's being made in the last paragraph of C17 is that the British government is not representing the British people on this issue, which is contrary to its role as an elected representative government.

No government, especially a government that claims to be representative, has any right to determine "right/wrong" when the people clearly object to their interpretation of it.

quote:

---

If you asked Americans if you think allowing oppressive regimes that torture and kill their people and give them no rights is something we should allow to happen if we can stop it, i'm guessing a vast majority would say NO, WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW IT.

---

FAQ: A8, B13

quote:

---

We liked Iraq when he wasn't a threat.

---

You mean, when he wasn't a threat to Americans. The fact that the US government liked him when he was slaughtering human beings who happened to be Arabs says a lot about America's image as a "beacon of freedom". Many other governments are the same (I know that the Australian government is very similar), but like you said, popularity doesn't determine right/wrong.

quote:

---

The fact we used to like him, maybe even support him, is NOT an argument why we shouldn't STOP HIM NOW.

---

FAQ: A2, A4

quote:

---

What's wrong with nations being in our hip pocket?

---

I think you need to clarify this question. I detect two possible interpretations here: 1. What's wrong with having allies? 2. What's wrong with having puppets?

Which one are you suggesting?

quote:

---

At least then there isn't a danger of them doing things that are going to hurt us.

---

Another false dilemma: support brutal dictatorships, or risk American lives.

quote:

---

Tax cuts for the rich just make it fair. Why should the rich be punished for their success? Besides, that's just typical democrat rhetoric, the tax cuts are equal for EVERYONE. If one group pays MORE taxes, they should naturally be saving MORE money from a tax cut. It's unjust to only give the cuts to SOME and not to all.

---

C18 was not offering a case for why this is a bad thing, even though the authors clearly believe it is (and so do I, but this is a different debate altogether). The point that's being made here is that the Bush administration is using the 'war fever' to distract and/or discourage the American people from even discussing the effects of such policies, since it's clear that many Americans oppose it. Our particular opinions on whether it's bad or not are irrelevant to this issue. The relevant point is that the US government is supposed to represent the people, and it's trying to bypass its accountability to the people.

quote:

---

Oil? Globalization? I'm sorry, there is no alternative, and it makes no sense that a war on Iraq would HELP our "oil interests". It'd probably just flood the market, driving down demand and making companies lose money.

---

No it wouldn't. First of all, Iraqi oil is already being exported through the Oil for Food Program, so the increase in supply would be relatively marginal. Secondly, an increase in supply does not reduce demand, and oil is always in demand, regardless of how much there is or where it comes from. Thirdly, American oil companies would gain tons of money from a US-led invasion because it would give them a bigger slice of the pie in an oligopoly.

quote:

---

I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about.

---

FAQ: A3

[ 11-08-2002, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Guest Grayfox]

hes not worrying about the things other countries do... just the "contemptible" ones america does...

who exports the most pollution... hmmm thats a toughie.japan exports alot of pollution, so does china. everyone does their fare share of exporting pollution. the US is in the news more about it cause we're the big boy on the block... EVERYONE exports pollution. look at your so-called "resources". and dont try so hard to be biased.

as a matter of fact, i took the liberty of including a few links showing that the US is not the only exporter of pollution, and may not even be so major an exporter as people make out to believe... the articles can be found here , here , and here .

as for dictating policy at the end of a broken bottle... have you not been reading??? hussein, adid, milosevic, all forced their policies upon others by genocide, and general fear of genocide... we did the world a service by getting rid of milosevic... with adid we should have done the same thing we did in haiti, as for hussein, his time is coming. how many more examples do you need to realize the point???

menchise, i sincerely apologize for spewing so far off topic, i just seriously cannot stand by while people mouth off about half truths about something they know nothing about, or at least pretend they do.

[ 11-08-2002, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

[Menchise]

Grayfox, take a look at FAQ A9.

Grayfox's rant was already covered in section A9 of the FAQ. The fact that he repeated the same assertions without responding to the FAQ's counter-argument indicates that he didn't read the article with much attention.

From now on, I'm only responding to criticisms of the FAQ that actually address points made in the FAQ (like Dredd's post).

[Guest Grayfox]

like i said, the article was not worth my attention at all... no thats not being fair, maybe if i was on the head it would be worth my time for i would have nothing else to do... the fact that there is a counter argument at all about so heinous a crime to humanity shows the ignorance of the author who pretends to know what hes talking about.

but i digress, what i contemptible country we live in...or i live in i should say...

the fact whether or not you respond to me is a trivial matter, my object is to show what a waste of time this little "faq" was, and if the author was a little more intelligible, he would have gotten a point across... maybe.

and for the record, a-9 has absoloutely nothing to do with the point i was trying to get across... perhaps i should get crayons and draw you a map so you would understand better.

[ 11-08-2002, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

the fact that there is a counter argument at all about so heinous a crime to humanity shows the ignorance of the author who pretends to know what hes talking about.

---

If you had read what I referred you to, you wouldn't have written what you just wrote, because it was irrelevant.

quote:

---

the fact whether or not you respond to me is a trivial matter, my object is to show what a waste of time this little "faq" was, and if the author was a little more intelligible, he would have gotten a point across... maybe.

---

Explain to me why it's a waste of time.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grayfox:

perhaps i should get crayons and draw you a map so you would understand better.

---

Hoo-Ah! Game, set, and match!

[Raven]

Menchise, darling, there is no way I'm going to read through that FAQ; it's extremely long and rather bland. It seams as if your primary argumentative strategy involves demanding that everyone spend an inordinate amount of time reading propaganda (and please, that is propaganda, don't bother trying to argue otherwise).

quote:

---

These and more quotes from the speech that Jaguar contributes to the debate are examples of one of the most common fallacies of critical thinking: the false dilemma. Bush is trying to spread the lie that people who oppose an invasion of Iraq believe in doing nothing. The false dilemma: support Bush's plan, or support inaction. It's illogical and misleading.

---

Of course those aren't the only two options, but ultimately you either support Bush's plan, or you oppose it (perhaps in favor of another plan, perhaps not).

quote:

---

You mean, when he wasn't a threat to Americans. The fact that the US government liked him when he was slaughtering human beings who happened to be Arabs says a lot about America's image as a "beacon of freedom".

---

Darling, either we are suppose to be interventionists and try to change all of this nonsense, or we're not, make up your mind.

quote:

---

I think you need to clarify this question. I detect two possible interpretations here: 1. What's wrong with having allies? 2. What's wrong with having puppets?

---

What's wrong with either?

quote:

---

No it wouldn't. First of all, Iraqi oil is already being exported through the Oil for Food Program, so the increase in supply would be relatively marginal. Secondly, an increase in supply does not reduce demand, and oil is always in demand, regardless of how much there is or where it comes from. Thirdly, American oil companies would gain tons of money from a US-led invasion because it would give them a bigger slice of the pie in an oligopoly.

---

And this is bad because why? The American governments responsible for the American people, it exists because of us and it exists for us. This means that the government should do what benefits us the most (speaking in the long term, of course).

[Guest Grayfox]

first, i did read what you pointed me to, my point being (between yawns) there should be no argument or counter argument about the subject period. what those people have done is beyond the contention of someone who ,odds are, gets his information second hand. if you would just open your eyes a little you would be amazed at what you see.

if you still dont understand this, then ill get out the big crayons.

it is a waste of time, because it is quite obvious that the author wishes us to think he knows what he is talking about by spewing forth a ton (and i reiderate the word ton) of leftist trash that doesnt mean a thing... its like putting a puzzle together when you suddenly realize you have 4 puzzles in the same box.

or trying to solve a rubix cube with half the stickers torn off...

total nonsense.

[ 11-08-2002, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Menchise, darling, there is no way I'm going to read through that FAQ; it's extremely long and rather bland.

---

Then don't post about it.

quote:

---

It seams as if your primary argumentative strategy involves demanding that everyone spend an inordinate amount of time reading propaganda (and please, that is propaganda, don't bother trying to argue otherwise).

---

Propaganda: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Any medium that advocates a political allegiance is propaganda, whether it's true or not. Therefore, Bush's speeches are propaganda, and so is the FAQ. As people in political debate, we choose which propaganda to believe. To refuse to read leftist material because it's "propaganda" is to fail to recognize that right-wing material (and everything in between) is also propaganda.

quote:

---

Of course those aren't the only two options, but ultimately you either support Bush's plan, or you oppose it (perhaps in favor of another plan, perhaps not).

---

The problem that anti-war people face all the time is the assumption from pro-war people that we're for inaction. It's annoying to say the least, especially when it's just one of a dozen other assumptions about the anti-war left.

That's why the FAQ is so long: much of it is merely countering mainstream prejudice toward leftists. For example, no one questions whether a right-wing person cares about what happened on 9/11, but leftists are required to restate their sentiments over and over again or else they're regarded as uncaring scum. It's very insulting.

quote:

---

Darling, either we are suppose to be interventionists and try to change all of this nonsense, or we're not, make up your mind.

---

Not. See FAQ sections B14 and C12.

quote:

---

What's wrong with either?

---

"What's wrong with having allies?" Depends on who the ally is. To ally oneself with oppressive regimes is wrong because it legitimizes the oppression of the people there. Generally, if you're a corrupt and brutal dictator, you will have no worries about oppressing the people when a superpower is arming your soldiers (e.g. US support for Indonesia).

"What's wrong with having puppets?" To make puppets out of regimes is to deny self-determination to the people there, hence they have no freedom to run their own affairs.

Given these two situations, is there really any wonder why anti-Western terrorism exists?

quote:

---

And this is bad because why? The American governments responsible for the American people, it exists because of us and it exists for us. This means that the government should do what benefits us the most (speaking in the long term, of course).

---

Even in the long term, an invasion of Iraq would benefit the economic elite, but the American people would be worse off, because the imposition of another puppet regime as an example of full-scale American hooliganism would precipitate more terrorism, and American civilians will be the targets. The US government will use the subsequent attacks to rationalize further deterioration of civil liberties, hence the American people become even worse off.

[ 11-08-2002, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

first, i did read what you pointed me to, my point being (between yawns) there should be no argument or counter argument about the subject period. what those people have done is beyond the contention of someone who ,odds are, gets his information second hand. if you would just open your eyes a little you would be amazed at what you see.

if you still dont understand this, then ill get out the big crayons.

---

Grayfox, get your crayons and explain your issues with this section of the FAQ (this is the one I've been referring):

"A9. Adam Shatz quotes Don Guttenplan saying that for a small but vocal section of American radicals, "there is only one imperialism, and if it isn't American it's not imperialism." Is this your view?

"Not at all. During the Cold War, Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan was as much a reality as U.S. imperialism in Latin America or Vietnam. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States is far and away the world's most powerful nation and, therefore, its imperialism is far more dangerous than that of lesser powers. But lesser powers can still be imperialist and we condemn all these imperialisms: among them Iraq (in Iran and Kuwait), Israel (in Lebanon and the Occupied Palestinian Territories), Serbia (in Bosnia), Russia (in Chechnya), and China (in Tibet). Opposing U.S. imperialism doesn't mean one has to be blind to the imperialism of others. But war supporters ought to be careful that their opposition to Iraqi or Serbian imperialism doesn't lead them to ignore U.S. imperialism."

quote:

---

it is a waste of time, because it is quite obvious that the author wishes us to think he knows what he is talking about by spewing forth a ton (and i reiderate the word ton) of leftist trash that doesnt mean a thing... its like putting a puzzle together when you suddenly realize you have 4 puzzles in the same box.

or trying to solve a rubix cube with half the stickers torn off...

---

Circular argument: you claim it's a waste of time because the authors spewed forth leftist trash, and yet you provide no convincing argument for why it is trash, apart from your trashy claim that it's "quite obvious". What you said is no different from saying that the authors are writing trash because it's quite obvious that it's a waste of time. If everyone debated like this, the world would be a giant Monty Python sketch. In fact, you already stated that you didn't read most of the article because you believe it's a waste of time, hence you contradicted your own claim that the authors wrote trash.

[ 11-08-2002, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Raven]

quote:

---

Then don't post about it.

---

Bah! You're just no fun.

quote:

---

Any medium that advocates a political allegiance is propaganda, whether it's true or not. Therefore, Bush's speeches are propaganda, and so is the FAQ. As people in political debate, we choose which propaganda to believe. To refuse to read leftist material because it's "propaganda" is to fail to recognize that right-wing material (and everything in between) is also propaganda.

---

Yes darling, I know, but if I'm going to read propaganda it might as well be propaganda that I agree with. Besides, I don't pay much mind to propaganda from either side.

quote:

---

The problem that anti-war people face all the time is the assumption from pro-war people that we're for inaction. It's annoying to say the least, especially when it's just one of a dozen other assumptions about the anti-war left.

---

Well, I happen not to hold that particular misconception, though I rather think that war is the best option.

quote:

---

That's why the FAQ is so long: much of it is merely countering mainstream prejudice toward leftists. For example, no one questions whether a right-wing person cares about what happened on 9/11, but leftists are required to restate their sentiments over and over again or else they're regarded as uncaring scum. It's very insulting.

---

I've noticed some of that going around myself, and I agree, that would be rather insulting. Besides, if anyone here can be considered uncaring it's me.

quote:

---

Not. See FAQ sections B14 and C12.

---

I'm not entirely sure I see the relevance here, it seams to me that the opinion of the populace being liberated is of secondary importance.

quote:

---

"What's wrong with having allies?" Depends on who the ally is. To ally oneself with oppressive regimes is wrong because it legitimizes the oppression of the people there. Generally, if you're a corrupt and brutal dictator, you will have no worries about oppressing the people when a superpower is arming your soldiers (e.g. US support for Indonesia).

---

So? America's roll is to look out for the interests of America's population, and if this means allying with a dictatorship, then I simply don't see a problem with that. Besides, there are only a dozen or so countries that political scientists consider true democracies (or maybe it's a half dozen, I forget), so it's not like we have a lot of options.

quote:

---

"What's wrong with having puppets?" To make puppets out of regimes is to deny self-determination to the people there, hence they have no freedom to run their own affairs.

---

Ha, like the people have any self determination as far as the government goes anyway, that's rich darling.

quote:

---

Even in the long term, an invasion of Iraq would benefit the economic elite, but the American people would be worse off, because the imposition of another puppet regime as an example of full-scale American hooliganism would precipitate more terrorism, and American civilians will be the targets.

---

Well, I see nothing wrong with benefiting the economic elite, just as I'm sure a lot of poor people have no problem with policies that benefit the poor. As for this American hooliganism (great word choice by the way) striking off more terrorism, I rather think that strong and decisive action against countries harboring terrorists (like Afghanistan) will reduce the terrorist problem rather then enhance it. And before I do something like assume you're advocating inaction, what do you suggest America does?

quote:

---

"Not at all. During the Cold War, Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan was as much a reality as U.S. imperialism in Latin America or Vietnam. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States is far and away the world's most powerful nation and, therefore, its imperialism is far more dangerous than that of lesser powers. But lesser powers can still be imperialist and we condemn all these imperialisms: among them Iraq (in Iran and Kuwait), Israel (in Lebanon and the Occupied Palestinian Territories), Serbia (in Bosnia), Russia (in Chechnya), and China (in Tibet). Opposing U.S. imperialism doesn't mean one has to be blind to the imperialism of others. But war supporters ought to be careful that their opposition to Iraqi or Serbian imperialism doesn't lead them to ignore U.S. imperialism."

---

So remind me, will you, what exactly is wrong with imperialism?