THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Well, Bill, not all share your opnion:

Quote:

... but it is certainly worthy of consideration when weighing the credibility of his opinion

For instance President Bush said to a several times convicted criminal (last time nearly three years prison on bail):

Quote:

[...]
The Prime Minister and I are in complete agreement that Europe and America are both more secure and more effective when we act together. I'm pleased that Prime Minister Berlusconi is now serving as the President of the European Union. And I'm confident that under his leadership of the EU, Europe and America will continue to meet the great challenges before us.

Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your leadership, your wise counsel and your friendship
[...]

SOURCE

Oh, it's Berlusconi from Italy. The man, who changed the law not to be convicted again.

0 Replies

I don't think we've even begun to understand the great tragedy this administration is visiting upon us and the rest of the world.

This is the most pathetic administration I've personally had to endure in my lifetime -- and I cannot for the life of me understand how seemingly intelligent individuals such as some of you posting here cannot see it for what it is.

0 Replies

Frank, some of us can and have for a year or more. Some of us know, and knew way back then, the deceptions that were being perpetrated and for all of the wrong reasons. We knew the world vision of this administration, saw the solipsistic narrowing and weakening of our country's focus, and felt helpless to set up alarums. (Who would listen?)

Vulcan suits well the frontier mentality. It may be many centuries before the historians tell us that there was a sea change when the US attacked Iraq, that being a causal factor as the planet went up in flames from nuclear devices set off by rogue and failed states given permission by our country to attack any old sovereign state that had...uh, WMDs or some ruler they didn't like...or....

0 Replies

Bush not only took us into war on false information, but will not let Iraq have a "real" democracy by controlling their government from Washington.

0 Replies

c.i., I've been thinking about all of that today. I read a perceptive piece in the Irish Times in this past week -- can't seem to pull it up to give a link -- about how un-free the Iraqis are at this time. Papers are being shut down, one's associates are being watched, assembly is a no-no unless pre approved, and yet, how can we, as the invading occupiers, get control unless we have an iron grip on the population? There are no easy answers here.

I want, least of all, for us to cut and run. Our invasion was one of the tragic mistakes in US history. But it happened. It would be even more tragic for us to leave. We destroyed the country and we must not walk away from the chaos we created. We must suck it up and try to figure out how to leave this place a bit better than we found it. It is not enough to say that we are leaving it better because we got rid of Saddam. (We could have done that with a stealthy and surgical strike by our CIA, excising him and his family and close compadres. Getting rid of Saddam was never EVER the reason we attacked Iraq.) If we could just get over the insane idea that one can "impose" democracy on a country, we might be able to put together a plan. (I for one haven't a clue as to how this could be done, although I have your list, Ican, awaiting my own middle-of-the-night reflection and perhaps a few insights. But perhaps not.) Is the only answer that we send in another 50,000 troops, gain total control (with the same fear factor that Saddam used so successfully...?) and then put in place a troika of governors?

How can one have a democracy without democratic institutions? Without the rule of law, without a security or police that is trusted by the populace, without courts, without an educational system that teaches the people about democracy, a system of government they have never known? When the country has been ruled by tribal law or religious law (even if there was a nod to secular justice) it will not happen overnight or over years that people will understand or accept the idea of democratic institutions. The only way we can impose "democracy" is with an iron fist. Is that ironic or what?

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

If I like you, you're okay - if I don't, I'm gonna destroy you. Now, make me like you!

Why do you believe that?

I merely want to destroy the common enormous terrorist danger (CETD) not because I don't like them, but solely because they are trying to destroy us because they don't like us.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

This would be about ... how many new wars do you think?

I think it's all part of the current war, I now call it WWIII, that started in the 20th century in the middle east in the 1920s before the start of WWII when terrorists began murdering jews in Palestine, and has been increasing in ferocity and scope ever since.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And: how far left or right can a elected government be, to fall out of the term "SCR"?

Perhaps you meant: secure representative democracies (SRD). The only way such an elected government can fall out of the term SRD is to not be one or more of the following:
secure;
representative; or,
a democracy.

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

How can one have a democracy without democratic institutions? Without the rule of law, without a security or police that is trusted by the populace, without courts, without an educational system that teaches the people about democracy, a system of government they have never known? When the country has been ruled by tribal law or religious law (even if there was a nod to secular justice) it will not happen overnight or over years that people will understand or accept the idea of democratic institutions.

I agree with the above part of your paragraph.

Kara wrote:

The only way we can impose "democracy" is with an iron fist.

I disagree with your above sentence.

Kara wrote:

Is that ironic or what?

If your claim that an iron fist is "the only way" were true, I'd say yes to your last sentence.

The US helped accomplished the conversion of Japan to democracy and the return of Germany to democracy after helping to win WWII. I realize the contemporary terrorist mentality is somewhat differently motivated than the defeated Japanese and German mentalities. However, there are a few similarities. Both the Shintoist and Nazi mentalities were motivated by a sense of revenge. Each perceived themselves to have fashioned a superior culture even to the point of being the most superior culture. Both believed they could achieve their goal of ruling all the other cultures by murdering and conquering them.

Somehow, in our allegedly mediocre way both Democratic and Republican Administrations were able to destroy and/or change enough of those mentalities to accomplish secure representative democracies (SRD) in both countries that have somehow survived. Maybe acting together the existing SRDs can achieve the same thing again. But note that first that the iron fist was a necessary short term stage of that accomplishment. Neither the League of Nations prior to WWII nor the UN in WWIII could achieve peace through negotiation. The bad guys have to be practically destroyed or forcibly changed first.

0 Replies

Kara's quote, "Getting rid of Saddam was never EVER the reason we attacked Iraq.)" Unfortunately, that's what being sold now and bought by many Americans as the justification for our invasion. I'm not so sure it's our responsibility to see this through to it's successful end without international support. I can't think of any country our military has helped bring "democracy" to their country after we've reeked havoc and destruction. The news from Iraq keeps getting worse; the Shiite cleric's followers erupted into armed violence which resulted in the death of 8 more US soldiers and 24 Iraqis. This number will only increase. At what point do we say enough is enough? This is a winless war.

0 Replies

For those who think the Iraqi's have an interim independent democratic government needs to read more to learn the truth; it's not happening on June 30 as this administration continues to claim.

0 Replies

Goes over a selective groups head c.i. Wink

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I too thank Joe for the heads up.

blatham wrote:
Tarantulas wrote:
And his other attribute is that he is a convicted felon.

You REALLY do need to understand the notion of logical fallacy and how this is an instance of it. It's a logical error you continue to make, in your own posts, and in what you paste.

blatham wrote:
sumac wrote:
Not to mention being completely irrelevant to the subject matter at hand.

sumac

Yes, precisely. Tarantulas is guilty here, again, of the 'ad hominem fallacy', which is one of the fallacies of relevance, and it's the one we most commonly bump into. Eg, "The man is a homosexual. You're going to believe what he says?!" Whatever factual claim has been made remains unaddressed, with attention purposefully shifted over to the irrelevancy of some other factor. It's the prime tool of discreditation, and it is used by this administration every day. It is also the fundamental tool of people like Ann Coulter.

I would ask you two to reconsider this bit of criticism. Do you really think the existence of a criminal record is irrelevant when assessing a person's credentials to speak as an expert on criminal law? A person's sexual preference is indeed irrelevant, but a person's criminal background (or lack thereof) most certainly is not. This isn't true when considering a jury, a judge, an attorney or politician so why should it be when determining the credibility of an "expert witness"? I'm not suggesting it is grounds to dismiss his opinion out-of-hand, but it is certainly worthy of consideration when weighing the credibility of his opinion. Ad-Hominem it is not.

occam

First, if you take a look at Tarantulas' previous posts and pastes, most particularly on the Richard Clarke testimony, it is marked by almost constant use of ad hominem derogations. I suspect, like most folks, he just hasn't been fortunate enough to have enrolled in a first year logic course and so, hasn't yet understood this beast.

But the Dean matter is more specific. Dean was White House counsel under Nixon, and spent four months in jail for his role in the Watergate coverup (if I recall correctly, it was for lying to FBI agents in the initial investigations). But if there was a good guy amongst the bad guys, it was Dean. You'll possibly recall his warning to Nixon that there was 'a cancer on the Presidency'. It was Dean's testimony to Sam Irvin's Senate committee which named Mitchell, Erlichman, and Haldeman as giving approval for the break-in and which clarified that Nixon had approved of the coverup. Outside of this instance of initially lying to the FBI agents, there's no indication that either previously, or after, Dean has been involved in any other such felonious or criminal actions of any sort.

So, how is this history relevant grounds for questioning the veracity of Dean's comments and viewpoints on this White House? Yet that is exactly how Tarantuas uses that history...to discredit. Yes?

0 Replies

C.I. said

Quote:

For those who think the Iraqi's have an interim independent democratic government needs to read more to learn the truth

I keep hearing that "we" are going to stay in Iraq to ensure that no one segment of Iraqi society is going to be disenfranchised by any other by enforcing a constituion of equality. Um well, here in the USA we also have a constitution eo ensure equality so just soon can we expect to elect a president who is not WHITE-MALE-CHRISTIAN?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

C.I. said

Quote:
For those who think the Iraqi's have an interim independent democratic government needs to read more to learn the truth

I keep hearing that "we" are going to stay in Iraq to ensure that no one segment of Iraqi society is going to be disenfranchised by any other by enforcing a constituion of equality. Um well, here in the USA we also have a constitution eo ensure equality so just soon can we expect to elect a president who is not WHITE-MALE-CHRISTIAN?

HUZZA! HUZZA!

0 Replies

Quote:

The US helped accomplished the conversion of Japan to democracy and the return of Germany to democracy after helping to win WWII. I realize the contemporary terrorist mentality is somewhat differently motivated than the defeated Japanese and German mentalities.

Ican, Japan and Germany were homogeneous societies, making the job easier, don't you think?

I am watching with horrified fascination what is going on in Iraq right now. I may agree with Joe Biden (whom I've never had much respect for) that an international high commissioner might be the best substitute for a 'King' or figurehead in a position of power to rule over the country until order can be restored.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Um well, here in the USA we also have a constitution eo ensure equality so just soon can we expect to elect a president who is not WHITE-MALE-CHRISTIAN?

If this forum is any indication, too many of us seem to prefer WHITE-MALE-CHRISTIAN-INCOMPETENT-DEMAGOGS. Does it really matter what their complexion and religion is? I'd be content with a bias toward competent realists regardless of their religion and whether they were light, medium or dark complected.

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

Ican, Japan and Germany were homogeneous societies, making the job easier, don't you think?

Yes they were more homogeneous than the population is in Iraq. But Iraq has a smaller population than WWII Japan or Germany. The most difficult problem presented by Iraq that neither Japan or Germany were cursed with is the accelerating infiltration of al Qaeda murderers. The local ones present enough extra difficulty.

0 Replies

Now this is someone I would like to read. He just won the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting in Iraq from before the war up to the present date.

Quote:

INTERNATIONAL REPORTING
ANTHONY SHADID
The Washington Post

The Pulitzer judges hailed Mr. Shadid's "extraordinary ability to capture, at personal peril, the voices and emotions of Iraqis" before, during and after the American invasion. Mr. Shadid, 35, said his favorite articles included one in which he interviewed a father in Thuluya, Iraq, who had been forced by villagers to kill his son, whom they suspected of spying for the Americans. "It's been a tough story, it's been a tough year," Mr. Shadid, an American of Lebanese descent, said from Baghdad yesterday. "We tried to define an event that's going to have repercussions for a generation."
FINALISTS Roger Thurow and Scott Kilman of The Wall Street Journal, for articles on starvation in Africa; David Zucchino of The Los Angeles Times, for reports from combat zones during the Iraq war.

Anthony Shadid

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I too thank Joe for the heads up.

blatham wrote:
Tarantulas wrote:
And his other attribute is that he is a convicted felon.

You REALLY do need to understand the notion of logical fallacy and how this is an instance of it. It's a logical error you continue to make, in your own posts, and in what you paste.

blatham wrote:
sumac wrote:
Not to mention being completely irrelevant to the subject matter at hand.

sumac

Yes, precisely. Tarantulas is guilty here, again, of the 'ad hominem fallacy', which is one of the fallacies of relevance, and it's the one we most commonly bump into. Eg, "The man is a homosexual. You're going to believe what he says?!" Whatever factual claim has been made remains unaddressed, with attention purposefully shifted over to the irrelevancy of some other factor. It's the prime tool of discreditation, and it is used by this administration every day. It is also the fundamental tool of people like Ann Coulter.

I would ask you two to reconsider this bit of criticism. Do you really think the existence of a criminal record is irrelevant when assessing a person's credentials to speak as an expert on criminal law? A person's sexual preference is indeed irrelevant, but a person's criminal background (or lack thereof) most certainly is not. This isn't true when considering a jury, a judge, an attorney or politician so why should it be when determining the credibility of an "expert witness"? I'm not suggesting it is grounds to dismiss his opinion out-of-hand, but it is certainly worthy of consideration when weighing the credibility of his opinion. Ad-Hominem it is not.

occam

First, if you take a look at Tarantulas' previous posts and pastes, most particularly on the Richard Clarke testimony, it is marked by almost constant use of ad hominem derogations. I suspect, like most folks, he just hasn't been fortunate enough to have enrolled in a first year logic course and so, hasn't yet understood this beast.

But the Dean matter is more specific. Dean was White House counsel under Nixon, and spent four months in jail for his role in the Watergate coverup (if I recall correctly, it was for lying to FBI agents in the initial investigations). But if there was a good guy amongst the bad guys, it was Dean. You'll possibly recall his warning to Nixon that there was 'a cancer on the Presidency'. It was Dean's testimony to Sam Irvin's Senate committee which named Mitchell, Erlichman, and Haldeman as giving approval for the break-in and which clarified that Nixon had approved of the coverup. Outside of this instance of initially lying to the FBI agents, there's no indication that either previously, or after, Dean has been involved in any other such felonious or criminal actions of any sort.

So, how is this history relevant grounds for questioning the veracity of Dean's comments and viewpoints on this White House? Yet that is exactly how Tarantuas uses that history...to discredit. Yes?

Do you ever get tired of sounding like a hypocritical (Symbol for the democratic party)? Here you are calling someone out for using ad hominem comments on someone and you say "I suspect, like most folks, he just hasn't been fortunate enough to have enrolled in a first year logic course and so, hasn't yet understood this beast."? I believe that falls under that famous fallacy the pot calling the kettle black.

Maybe if you spent the same amount of time refuting statements as you do attacking other users your statements would have more impact.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do you ever get tired of sounding like a hypocritical (Symbol for the democratic party)? Here you are calling someone out for using ad hominem comments on someone and you say "I suspect, like most folks, he just hasn't been fortunate enough to have enrolled in a first year logic course and so, hasn't yet understood this beast."? I believe that falls under that famous fallacy the pot calling the kettle black.

No, it doesn't. It is likely factually true. If it isn't, fine, I'll tip my cap, acknowledge that I got the facts wrong, and then take him to task for not applying what he learned in that first year logic course.

It wasn't meant as, nor does it function as, a derogation of any specific argument Tarantulas has made or might make. It is a plausible explanation (and was meant to be exactly that) for why Tarantulas uses and forwards ad hominems so frequently.

I did not intend it as a personal derogation, I intended it as an explanation and as a 'root root' for education.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know