Cycloptichorn wrote:Foofie wrote:nimh wrote:Foofie wrote:those who have no vested interest in Iraq, perhaps are just having an intellectual exercise, when discussing Iraq. That's the point, if one doesn't have a vested interest in a country, then one is, possibly, just having an intellectual exercise when discussing that country.
You're ignoring the fact that since the US, as you've proudly confirmed yourself, is the world's superpower, we
all have a vested interest in US politics. Because whatever you do, affects us all, and quite directly and heavily.
President Bush has made the world a very different place than President Gore would have, and all of us, in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa feel the consequences in various gravitating ways. So it's hardly just an "intellectual exercise" for us either.
You are correct! And, I hope your correctness lasts many millenia. As the saying goes, "From your mouth to God's ears."
Then you agree that they not only have a right to speak, but a responsibility; and that you have a responsibility to take them seriously, without questioning their points of origin or implying that somehow they aren't valid participants in the conversation.
Cycloptichorn
I don't know what you mean by the term "seriously" or "responsibility"?
I agree non-U.S. citizens can be participants in any discussion, relative to the U.S. However, since I am viewing the discussion from another perspective, by having a
different vested interest in the U.S., I don't have any responsibility to give credence to any other position than my own position. In other words, we are all free to disenfranchise anyone's postion, based on our own position.
Sort of like the perspective of the undocumented workers from Mexico in the U.S. They might argue that they have a right to work in the U.S., since their ancestors were here to greet Christopher Columbus. But, many U.S. citizens say they have no right to be in the U.S., without appropriate papers. Each side, in effect, is disenfranchising the position of the other side. Who's right? That's not the issue, probably. They either get to stay, or will be deported one day? Who knows? So, regarding our respective positions relating to the U.S., we can, and do, believe our positions reflect a
correct position, and we each disenfranchise the position of the opposing side. Voila, I agree to disagree!
P.S. I only said my position is good for me to practice (a
subjective position). I've never proselytized it for everyone. However, I believe, I've been proselytized to, relative to other's positions (a supposed
objective position). You know, like some religions proselytize, and a few don't! Proselytizing might just be a cultural facet that some people can't shake.
