And a piece today from Slate on whether or not them 'New European' states are all happy with Bush and his brave theory-warriors...hint, they aren't:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078876/
Good links, and quotes. Thought-provoking. This whole business continues to make me sick in my soul.
An articulate view, blatham. Thanks for posting.
"..This is just arguendo, perception. What if, due to some divine interventional device (bit of irony here from an agnostic,) we were unable to strike at Iraq? Let's say we had been warned that we would all turn into pillars of salt as we tried to undo our trigger locks. If first-strike violence was not an option, what would we do? "For good men to do nothing" does not mean that they have only the option of war. It means that their voices must be heard, with increasing strength..."
You've gotten at the essence of it, Kara. Very well stated. Thanks for the clarity!
My responses to those who promote war amount to the following:
1) The curious timing, the influence of dangerous fundamentalism on this administration's policies, its unilateralist and undiplomatic fumbles, the need to focus on other much greater threats, and what virtually everyone agrees could be the "blowback" from the proposed invasion are all good reasons to be suspicious about the motivations and judgments in the administration's desire to invade Iraq, and therefore:
2) All-or-Nothing and Let's-Roll arguments only strengthen my belief that this proposed war isn't about WMD's and Saddam. Furthermore,
3) xenophobia and ignorance appear to motivate many who support the administration in its efforts to create a war.
5) Since I'm one of those who will always be philosophically anti-war, nothing will ever persuade me that war should be anything less than the last option.
That said, I'd at least respect a rationale for going to war IF those who support war could prove to me that there is any good reason to believe that Saddam and his (as yet largely hypothetical) weapons were a clear and immediate threat to the rest of the world.
GET the goods on Saddam and his weapons. SHOW CLEARLY that an attack on another country or countries is imminent, and you've got a case for your war. At the moment all we've got is a rotten dictator at whom we're shouting, PROVE A NEGATIVE, PROVE A NEGATIVE! I don't think international law -- or our law -- supports war in those circumstances, does it?
Tartarin, I see that you were not a math major. LOL. (And I knew you must have majored in English, anyway, because of a perfectly puncutated set of possessives in a much earlier post.)
You wrote: Since I'm one of those who will always be philosophically anti-war, nothing will ever persuade me that war should be anything less than the last option.
The problem with people like us is that we are chosing this belief as a first principle, and arguments that do not flow logically from that principle are unacceptable to us. Our stance is as baffling to others as their stance is to us, theirs being based on a value system that includes non-self-defensive war as a reasonable option.
Tartar sauce
Maybe you should ask Kara where she obtained her excellent education ---then consider trading yours in for a similar model.
Au contraire Kara. However, I am but an opinion of one.
Quote:Our stance is as baffling to others as their stance is to us, theirs being based on a value system that includes non-self-defensive war as a reasonable option.
I believe in war, even a war that is not "defensive". Once said, I lean closer to your belief than that of the hawk. I fully believe that war shows the immaturity of man. We, being mankind, can not advance to the next level of civilization until we become as one and war is abolished.
People who advocate war for political and economic gain are abhorent and evil!
I tried to edit the math error, Kara, but it getting back in was so-o-o-o-o slow that I gave up! Embarrassing! (1-2-3-4-5 testing testing...)
Actually, I said "...I'd at least respect a rationale for going to war IF..." I'm really interested in finding that rationale and don't want to close out argument because I'm opposed to war in principle.
But we've yet to read here or hear from the admin anything proving "... there is any good reason to believe that Saddam and his (as yet largely hypothetical) weapons were a clear and immediate threat to the rest of the world."
All we hear and read is the counter argument (which I think you'll agree is a non-argument), "You can't prove he hasn't got them." Do we at least agree that there should be a legitimate casus belli?
(Highly recommend the discussion on the Diane Rehm show this morning about the new Patriot Act. Available on audio later today at WAMU.ORG.)
Tartar sauce wrote:
But we've yet to read here or hear from the admin anything proving "... there is any good reason to believe that Saddam and his (as yet largely hypothetical) weapons were a clear and immediate threat to the rest of the world."
All we hear and read is the counter argument (which I think you'll agree is a non-argument), "You can't prove he hasn't got them." Do we at least agree that there should be a legitimate casus belli?
When you have a single myopic view and a closed mind it's impossible to hear because your mouth is always open.
Interesting article in today's San Jose Mercury News about this very subject titled, "Our war instincts are strong - and often wrong" by John Balzar, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times. In essense, his thesis is that most of our decision making are based on intuition, and not fact. There's a quote by Myers about intuition; "When tasks are challenging, people are usually more confident than correct....Moreover, the most confident people tend to be the the most overcofident...Our judgements are better than chance but generally not as good as we think...Intuition can dangerously mislead us." Balzar adds, 'Of coarse, intiution also transforms the audacious into history's heroes too -- when they're right. There's the chance of being flat wrong, too." I think that's exactly our situation today. c.i.
When do you think that the Iraq war will begin?
1. Feb 28
2. Mar 1
3. Mar 2
4. Mar 3
5. Never
Take your pick.
Your comment to me was below the belt, perception. Arguments ad hominem are unworthy.
Hmmm. Perhaps below the belt isn't as painful for me as it might be for a guy.
Reminds me of a time I was sparring in a karate workout. My opponent, a very young newbie, hit me by mistake in one breast. (This was before chest pads were required.) He stopped, stricken, and said, "Oh My God, I'm so sorry." I shrugged and said, "Hey, don't worry. It's only an implant." This doubled him over with laughter, at which his mouthpiece came loose, and he had to stop sparring to retrieve it. I got in a good punch while he was distracted.
So, your "low blow," perception, was really "above the belt."
( Just to make things perfectly clear, when we spar without gloves or pads, as in my anecdote above, we pull the punch completely just before the point of impact. Newbies haven't yet learned this skill, leading black belts to say they would rather spar with anyone but a white belt!)
911, You didn't list after Mar 3 - when the attack will begin. c.i.
Tartarin, I heard at least half of that program. Really kinda makes you sick at the lengths this admininstration will go down the road to a Totalitarian Fascist government. We the people are at risk!
kara, Just want you to know before hand, I'm on YOUR SIDE.
c.i.
Kara is correct in writing: The problem with people like us is that we are chosing this belief as a first principle, and arguments that do not flow logically from that principle are unacceptable to us. Our stance is as baffling to others as their stance is to us, theirs being based on a value system that includes non-self-defensive war as a reasonable option.
But let's digress another step in our evaluation of a "value" system.
This country was founded on the most fundamental value that every citizen should have the right to pursue happiness. What is the opposite of happiness----"FEAR". That is the objective of the Terrrorist---to instill fear. Right now they must be laughing.
We know that the terrorist ideology did not originate in the US---it originated outside the borders of the US. Hunkering down in a bunker full of fear is not what I as an American consider an option, and I believe I would have plenty of companionship in that belief. Therefore it is logical to take the opposite position of seeking out the enemy head on and defeating him in battle. Since the enemy is flesh and blood, we know that he must have certain assets if he is to survive and flouish. The most obvious asset he must have is a place to HIDE and sleep. Therefore it is logical that we must deny him any place to hide and sleep. I think it also logical to equate any offensive efforts in this regard as actually defensive.
If we ignore the above basic principle of war we will always live in fear---American citizens have a right to be free from fear. There is only one way to do that ---- seek out the enemy world wide and defeat him.
There are those who insist that we must reverse all those injustices that have created this monster ideology of hate. This is true we must try, but in the meantime we must realize that we cannot reverse that which was created over the past 1000 years with the wave of a hand. In the meantime we must survive and attempt to defeat that ideology of hatred with the only weapons we have at the moment----technology and superior military force.
I believe we all have the same value system---for some it has become clouded by the myopic view that this administration is motivated by greed and a fondness for secrecy which is dangerous.
The President warned us that this would be a long and diffcult war---this war on terrorism. Many pundits predicted that Americans did not have the will for a long and dangerous campaign.
The dissenters are fueling that prediction. Surely anyone can see the need for the President to keep urging everyone forward toward that goal of defeating this shadowy cowardly enemy. I therefore make a call for unity and ask people not to fall prey to suspicion and thoughts of conspiracy.
You might might place yourselves in the shoes of the President and ask what you would do in his position----with the responsibilty of eliminating fear from America.
Tartarin wrote:Tres -- There have been a number of credible responses (even in the mainstream press) about a) the length of time it will take to make hydrogen fuel cells viable, and b) their long-term suitability as energy sources. It's not that I know a damn thing about hydrogen fuel cell development, it's that I'm an environmentalist who keeps an eye on people who DO know something about long term energy solutions. So I assure you, there are scientists and "talking heads" out there who question the focus on hydrogen fuel cells. All that means politically is that Bush's enthusiasm (and our money!) may have been misplaced. I think it's a fair topic for discussion.
But that is not the complaint that was made and to which I responded. The complaint was not that Bush was moving in the wrong direction here, but that he was knowingly handing money over to automakers without any intention of having that money used to develop hydrogen fuel cell powered cars. That seems an unsupportable comment.
The argument has been made that the proposed budget hands the money over to car companies with no strings attached, but having researched the question a bit further, I find that the proposal puts the money directly into the FreedomCar and FreedomFuel programs, through which the money goes to companies working in the hydrogen fuel cell arena,
some of which are car companies. But these two programs dole out the funds specifically and only for research and development that goes directly to hydrogen storage or fuel cell research. Period.
This makes it look like those claiming otherwise were misinformed.
Can anybody offer me evidence that I've got this wrong?
Here are some links:
Department of Energy section of budget proposal
FreedomCAR: Advancing Fuel Cell Vehicles
Kara
I regret that you misinterpret my comment as being aimed at you----it was not.
