Forums | MacLife

You're right...it has become painfully obvious that accurate word-choice is not of paramount importance around these parts.

Sad but true.

By the way, has anyone noticed that most of the anti-war arguments are intellectual and the pro-war arguments emotive?

It's interesting. I wonder what that means?

heh, only because you're on the antiwar side

Omega, remember one of Orwell's main points. . . Language is capable of a very high degree of exactitude. You change language, you can effectively rewrite history.

Pseudo-intellectual - at best. The only reason the pro-war sentiuments are "emotive" is because we get tired of having to point out the same things over and over, explain clear evidence, and argue semantics.

Oh, that's funny.  Clear evidence.      I miss your sense of humor 'bat.

You're right...it has become painfully obvious that accurate word-choice is not of paramount importance around these parts.

Sad but true.

By the way, has anyone noticed that most of the anti-war arguments are intellectual and the pro-war arguments emotive?

It's interesting. I wonder what that means?

Here's what I've noticed:

Most of the anti-war aguments are the extension of those who feel that all cultures are valid, and good and evil are moral equivalents.  They are the extension of skeptics, of cynics, of those who reject reason- in favor of what?

Most of the pro-war arguments are based upon fact and reality and, if in any way "emotive," are based upon realities that we as Americans have had to pay the price for our right to our lives, our liberties, and our prosperity.

I see you declined to pick up the gauntlet on the Lincoln issue - fine - because you are easily proven mistaken about his integrity.

I passed it over for a few reasons: the first being that the bigger problem I had with your post was the debate-killing name calling.  That's the problem with those tactics, your point about Lincoln became secondary to your point about mental midgets.  The other reasons were that I thought Mustapha and Schnikey answered well enough.  Especially Mstapha's point about the nature and purpose of their speeches.  But the main reason is that I thought a debate about Lincoln's integrity would derail a thread about Bush's use of the term "Axis of Evil," and the questioning of his metal health.

The plain FACT of the matter is that three words in a speech, obviously designed to harken back to earlier speeches made by not only his father, but Reagan, and even FDR escapes you completely.

No, it doens't escape me completely.  I know why such phrases are used in speeches.  What I'm saying is that such phrase cannot take the place of hard evidence that is imperative to justifying a war.  Lincoln, FDR, and Bush Sr. (I can't believe Bush gets to be on a list with the other two), did make the case for war.  In each of those cases there was overwhelming evidence and cause for war.  Bush Jr., on the other hand, has not made a case for and for an entire year. You must admit that this is not your average war adn should be scrutinized, no?  Bush has instead only provided unproven assertions (which I think Powell acknowledged indirectly many times in his speech by distinguishing his own claims as "not merely assertions"). 

He also had the foreknowledge of what Colin Powell was to deliver at the UN, so he had no need and was SMART not to tip that hand before the UN presentation, so that the spin-doctors, who are even now attempting to reduce or eliminate the impact of those facts would have no previous warning what they were, how they were gathered, or what the principals in the conversations said.

First, it's clear that there are spin doctors on both sides.  Wouldn't you agree?  Second, how do you know that Bush had such foreknowledge last year when he was using the "Axis of Evil" phrase.  He was using that phrase long before the inspectors were sent back there.  You give these guys a lot of credit.

Also, please note that even the information that WAS disseminated at the United Nations is only the tip of a large gathering of information that was judged too sensitive to release at all, for fear, among other things - of getting the providers of that information killed.

It is certainly true that the govt has much more information, but any assumption we make about the nature of that information is totally unfounded.  Just as there might be evidence of the kind you mentioned, there also might be cans of worms.  Remembver the U.S. weaponry we found in the Iraqi bunkers during the Gulf War?

But, please, you go right ahead debating the use of a simple three-word phrase.

Yep. That's the thread topic.  Glad you finally got it.   

This begs the question:  why THOSE three?  Some of us have argued here that it is a matter of the current administration's PREFERENCE, for whatever reasons, and not some universal sense of good versus evil.

Out of that pile of jibberish you call a "response," you bring up one interesting point-  Why Three Countries?

Actually, I believe it because they were attempting to create the false illusion of a close knit, cooperative relationship between the "Evils," that was centered on destroying "Good," which, of course, is the United States.  The characterization serves many functions, but primarily to absolve the U.S. of any guilt and to deny that these Evil nations have any other purpose than to hate the U.S.  As if there aren't Iraqis and North Koreans just like us going about their business, trying to live happy lives.

Whether or not the Iraqis and the North Koreans live happy lives or not is their business and not ours.  But the point is that they want to impose this value  upon us.  Personally, I  could have cared less about Iraq and its suppression of Kurds except they invaded Kuwait and started to threaten international interests and free trade.

Plus, we were attacked by Muslim Fundamentalists several times, including September 11th.

Not once in your he-man, master of the universe head did you even think that such attacks on us were evil!

And that's what gets me about you dudes here!

Didn't you think that the unprovoked attack on September 11th was an act of evil, of hatred?  Didn't you think this  was BAD?

You are so skeptical, I'll bet, that if attacked on the street by a robber, you will try to appease him as he puts a bullet through your head.

Iraq gasses thousands of Kurds and you couldn't care less but they threaten free trade!!! Ignoring for the moment that attacking the Kurds does threaten international interests and that the gas was OK when they were our best friends in the region and that the Iraqis HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 911 what is this free trade of which you speak? The U.S., the EU, the Japanese and everybody with any economic clout whatsoever do not practice free trade.

The Iraqis and the North Koreans want to impose their values on us? Did I read you right? You're not serious. The most powerful "cultural" force in the world today is American. Not good, not bad. Just the most powerful. Beside that Iraqi and North Korean values literally do not exist. Perhaps I misunderstood you but that is what you seemed to be saying.

Yes 911 was terrible but do you think terrorism started there? I can remember U.S. dollar financed bombs in London and N.Ireland. American backed death squads in Latin America. American financed mass murderers  - the Contras. American backed coups upsetting democratically elected governments followed by extremely harsh and murderous regimes in Chile and Iran. The list goes on and on. Of course they were good for trade so they must have been OK.

In general you should stay on the beach as you are totally clueless.

Iraq gasses thousands of Kurds and you couldn't care less but they threaten free trade!!! Ignoring for the moment that attacking the Kurds does threaten international interests and that the gas was OK when they were our best friends in the region and that the Iraqis HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 911 what is this free trade of which you speak? The U.S., the EU, the Japanese and everybody with any economic clout whatsoever do not practice free trade.

If you followed any of my posts you would understand that I cited this as evidence of Saddam's evilness.  Now I'm not going to waste my time trying to search the database to find that specific post for your benefit, so forget that.

The Iraqis and the North Koreans want to impose their values on us? Did I read you right? You're not serious. The most powerful "cultural" force in the world today is American. Not good, not bad. Just the most powerful. Beside that Iraqi and North Korean values literally do not exist. Perhaps I misunderstood you but that is what you seemed to be saying.

You did misunderstand me.  I cite 9-11 attacks as their blatant attempt to force their will upon us.

Yes 911 was terrible but do you think terrorism started there? I can remember U.S. dollar financed bombs in London and N.Ireland.

Those were sponsored by eithnic groups with specific goals, not  the U. S. Government.  Don't even go there, jackass!

American backed death squads in Latin America. American financed mass murderers  - the Contras. American backed coups upsetting democratically elected governments followed by extremely harsh and murderous regimes in Chile and Iran. The list goes on and on. Of course they were good for trade so they must have been OK.

So you favor the continuance of totalitarian regimes who you feel have the right to seize upon American interests abroad?

I thoroughly reject your arguments.

I suppose your next step is to cite every so-called atrocity that America committed abroad.  Don't waste your time.  Your so-called "challenges" will go unanswered- at least by me.

As far as my comments being overly simplistic "to assert that that means we are defending Saddam Hussein, or that we somehow condone terrorist attacks on innocent people", well, touche.  I guess I was right, huh?...

...Either you side with the good or the bad in this instence.  So far you seem to be siding with the bad.  Hence my rejection of your argument.

First, I don't understand the first paragraph above.

I didn't mean to imply that I think ALL of your comments are overly simplistic, but your insistance that everything is either good or bad is.  That's what I was joking about Gandalf a few posts ago.  The world isn't that simple.  By any standard no one, no nation, is purely good and, frankly, I think you know that.  Many people from all ends of the political spectrum have given endless examples of where the U.S. hasn't been entirely "good" and you choose to ignore them.  There is no doubt that Hussein is a bad man.  But there IS doubt about whether the U.S. leaders are bad men (to put it simply).  And the questions are legitimate, whether the current administration is willing to admit them publicly or not.  I didn't make this stuff up.

Really, it seems that it's a matter of you WANTING these matter to be as simple as siding "with the good or the bad," but that's too damned bi-polar for me.  It's a perfect setup for those who happened to file in behind the War Party, but for anyone with other good ideas, there is no other place but to stand with Hussein.  That's just silly.

Plenty of reasonable people think there are other ways to deal with Hussein besides all out war (leading to god knows what).  For instance, the editor of The Nation made a proposal the other day that with your mindframe you would be forced to call "bad."  Responding to Powell's assertion that a small number of inspectors couldn't cover the whole country and so the effort was futile.  He suggested that the problem wasn't necessarily that the inspections weren't working, but that the small number of inspectors wasn't enough.  They were being out-naeuvered.  How about 100 inspectors?  How about 1,000 inspectors around Iraq?  Can't sneak past 1,000 so easily.  To spring from the editor's ideas, why not 1,000 inspectors and some muscle behind them?  Global muscle, that is, since the UN would surely back such a program.  And so on.  It would be cheaper than the mobilization of a few ships.  Why are these options not even allowed in the debate?  Why is 300,000 tons of bombs (oe whatever it is) in one day the ONLY answer for this administration?

BTW, I'm not so interested in how such ideas are strategically possible or impossible, but why such ideas are not welcome in the debate.  Remember, the UN wanted to debate it's own resolution and the US said "No, bombing is the only answer."

take a good look at his face, I bet he was sitting beind a BIG table, say...with plenty of 'head' room beneath it

*snickers*

cheers
pj

Here's what I've noticed:

Most of the anti-war aguments are the extension of those who feel that all cultures are valid, and good and evil are moral equivalents.  They are the extension of skeptics, of cynics, of those who reject reason- in favor of what?

That is just soooo hilarious! I'm opposed to fighting a war so I'm cynical! I demand proof before going to war so I reject reason! Oh, God ... I'm laughing so hard I can hardly breathe!

And oh yeah .. good is evil, evil is good. Of course, I've been arguing that a war against Iraq would be immoral, but I guess if you believe Saddam is evil (which, hate to burst your bubble, I do) and killing him is good even if it destroys an entire nation, well, then opposing the war means I like Saddam? I dunno. What a gloriously simple outlook! I envy you.

Most of the pro-war arguments are based upon fact and reality and, if in any way "emotive," are based upon realities that we as Americans have had to pay the price for our right to our lives, our liberties, and our prosperity.

"Fact and reality" -- wow, that's wonderful. I wish I could manufacture a devoutly self-centered reality devoid of all conscience! Once again I envy you.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for proving my point!

Not once in your he-man, master of the universe head did you even think that such attacks on us were evil!

And that's what gets me about you dudes here!

Didn't you think that the unprovoked attack on September 11th was an act of evil, of hatred?  Didn't you think this  was BAD?

You are so skeptical, I'll bet, that if attacked on the street by a robber, you will try to appease him as he puts a bullet through your head.

Okay, you know what? I planned to let that slide, but I simply can't. Arguing about the issues is one thing, but you've insulted me deeply here.

On September 11th I was in an Asian country where people were cheering after the towers collapsed. They liked the idea that Americans were dying. It was traumatic for me. I tried my best to tell people that those images on TV were human beings dying, no matter what their nationality, but they didn't care. They didn't want to care. So in addition to feeling all the anger and sorrow and anguish you presumably felt, I found myself in a sea of people who added to it by being glad about what had happened.

You DARE to say I didn't find those attacks evil? You DARE to suggest I didn't give a damn about 9.11?

You are a pathetic bastard, unable to argue or debate, resorting to vicious (and, once again, purely emotive) tactics to strike back at dissenters.

I demand a goddamned apology for your insulting suggestion. No -- insulting is far too mild a word for it.

I guess I am one of the few people who doesnt see the insanity in "Axis of Evil."  I think it was fairly prophetic of GWB or his speechwriter.  Perhaps they were not using the tenth definition of the word Axis, but instead the first - A straight line about which a body or geometric object rotates or may be conceived to rotate.  Meaning that those countries are central to the problems facing the world.  I would agree.  (with the possible exception of Iran and the possible addition of a few other countries)  Their ideology and methods of government cause great problems for everyone.  Perhaps that is what was meant by "Axis of Evil."  Not actual collusion between those countries, but central problematic issues that are common to those countries and a great cause for concern to those of us who would like to live in a free and safe world.

Evil is not a religious term.  It can be defined in terms of ethical and moral conduct.  I think that everyone would agree that NK's behavior is anti-social, inflamatory, and dangerous.  Both internally and externally Kim's behavior is ethically and morally wrong to such a huge degree that I feel comfortable labeling it as Evil.

Iraq is essentially the same situation.  A country ruled by an authoritarian dictator who uses his power in ways that decrease freedom, stability and safety, not only in his country, but around the world.  Perhaps the list of his atrocities doesnt concern those of you who consider yourselves anti-war enought to justify military action.  Or perhaps you simply dont feel that Iraq is a big enough problem right now to precipitate a war.  Fair enough.  I dont agree, but that is another argument.  Whether you agree with the fact that Saddam and Kim are Evil or just see them as a problem, none of that justifies labeling GWB insane.

I would assert that anyone who doesnt see the clear danger represented by those two countries is a can or two short of a full six-pack themselves.

That was good.

Even though I am all for the removal of Saddam, and at this point it seems that a military invasion is the only way to do it.  I still believe that N.K. is by far a greater threat to the U.S. than Iraq is, but that's only my opinion, and as someone told me once, we, the public, are not privy to all of the intel and other information in regards to Iraq and N.K.

By the way, has anyone noticed that most of the anti-war arguments are intellectual and the pro-war arguments emotive?

It's interesting. I wonder what that means?

Totally wrong.
Anti-war arguments are enunciated badly and in incorrect grammar syntax and spelling by lily-livered, cowardly layabouts in womens blouses.
And ditto women wearing men's boots

Pro-war arguments are objective and well thought out.
We need a good dust up to flatten out the population growth curve a little.