Odub, In my simplistic world...if everyone did "the right thing" all would be well....unrealistic, sure...but it would be a damn good start.
The world is in the shape it is, partially, because we spend too much time debating the "grey areas" and not making the "right" decision.
Any and every action will have it's critics. If my questions and attempt to fully understand the issue beyond the "politics" of it come off as dismissive to you, you're mistaken.
After reading the 9 page thread from about 6-7 months ago about Isreal I would define "Dismissive" as making statements like "Fuck You", You're An Asshole", "Why don't you just leave" and "Ban". BTW...most of these were made to the very well versed and articulate Mr. Vitamin.
It's my belief that in most instances, once you peel away the politics, personal feelings, propaganda and rhetoric, you can actually get to the crux of the matter and form a realistic opinion.
Another question I'm interested in finding an answer to is....Why here at SS the overwhelming majority of the vocal U.S. folks appear to be very Liberal which is disproportionate to the country as a whole?? Are Hip-Hop/Vinyl Geeks just smarter than the voting public??
"I think one reason why my politics tend to rub people the wrong way around here is that I'm not in lock step with what appears to be the "popular" opinion here"
I'm man enough to live with that.....and I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong and change an opinion if presented with logical evidence.
Live with it.
Oliver wasn't commenting on your political views being different than his or others. I think the main point of his original post was that you don't back up any of your posts. Rather you use hyperbole and stereotypes and general statements about things being right or wrong, white or black. Using facts would be a great asset to your arguments.
Of course I completely disagree with the idea that any country can give another people freedom and democracy at the barrel of a gun. It just seems to go against common sense and history, but that's what they thought and did.
You don't think that freedom and democracy has EVER been the end result of War??
Germany and Japan had a history of parliamentary democracy before the military and Hitler took over their countries. When WWII was over they simply returned to a former political system that they were comfortable with, had experience with, etc.
In Iraq it was different. We went in and told them how things were going to be run, tried to pick their leaders, and then fucked everything up over and over and over. Even the most simple things we couldn't and still can't provide like electricity. Hey we came to free you, but you won't be able to turn on your lights or air conditioners for most of the day. Please, hold back your applause and thanks. Now we're freaking out because the Iraqis actually want what they want and not what the U.S. wants like their own independent countries, a heavily Islamic influenced form of government, etc.
another important distinction is that in this case we are the aggressors, whereas in WWII we were reacting to axis aggression
I've said this before: I think arguing politics on Soul Strut is often pointless, insofar as the attitudes I've seen from most people has been to stick to rather intractable positions. And more to the point, as I've written in the past, I think it's a waste of energy to get people to change their mind or beliefs;
o, i couldnt agree wiht you less. im surprised to see you even write this. personally, ive learned a lot from polistrut: new information, new criticisms, and the depth that comes from hearing several sides in a debate. even if people do often stick to their guns on these threads, know that if they are being introduced to new perspectives or are having their views challenged, the seeds have been planted for growth and change. the political and social commentary is what redeems this site from record nerdery/snobbery and has been a huge catalyst behind our charitable efforts (who more political than Bamboosh?) know that seeds are being planted in any political/sociological discussion. dont expect instant gratification from this stuff. we might never know what effects these discussions have. as ive said before, this country needs people to have open running debates and oratory in town squares, subway platforms, and the steps of city hall. if we all shut up about this shit, we resign oursleves to television educating the people and politicians robbing us blind.
rock, i see what youre saying about finding a common deonominator that will allow us to come to a conclusion and know where we stand. just remember that there are two sides to every story (at least!). even al qaeda has reasons for what they do that are rational to them. i do not sympathize or agree with them at all, but we are not going to understand their position at all by defining them as bad or evil. we could counter their despicable acts much more effectively if we were well aware of the root causes of their gripes and their enlistees gripes. to us, they are evil, to them , we are the great satan...ok, if thats the conclusion, there aint nothing left to do but try to bomb the otherside out the ballpark.
I don't mean to sound cynical but in my MANY years of seeing how debates play out online, it might be the lurkers who benefit but those actually posting up on their respective positions rarely seem particularly open to a wider spectrum of views and opinions. I think much of this has to do with the nature of the internet's lack of accountability. People feel like it's perfectly fine for them to talk out their ass and be pissy with one another. I mean, look at how every conversation about race on this site descends into the same talking points on all sides.
I don't include what Motown and Bam and others do around here since they're actually posting up essays vs. sounding like they're calling up on talk radio and ranting on some bullshit for a minute.
I'm not shitting on EVERYONE on Strut: we have some very informed and educated people who can speak, in depth, on many issues. Some.
I've said this before: I think arguing politics on Soul Strut is often pointless, insofar as the attitudes I've seen from most people has been to stick to rather intractable positions. And more to the point, as I've written in the past, I think it's a waste of energy to get people to change their mind or beliefs;
o, i couldnt agree wiht you less. im surprised to see you even write this. personally, ive learned a lot from polistrut: new information, new criticisms, and the depth that comes from hearing several sides in a debate. even if people do often stick to their guns on these threads, know that if they are being introduced to new perspectives or are having their views challenged, the seeds have been planted for growth and change. the political and social commentary is what redeems this site from record nerdery/snobbery and has been a huge catalyst behind our charitable efforts (who more political than Bamboosh?) know that seeds are being planted in any political/sociological discussion. dont expect instant gratification from this stuff. we might never know what effects these discussions have. as ive said before, this country needs people to have open running debates and oratory in town squares, subway platforms, and the steps of city hall. if we all shut up about this shit, we resign oursleves to television educating the people and politicians robbing us blind.
rock, i see what youre saying about finding a common deonominator that will allow us to come to a conclusion and know where we stand. just remember that there are two sides to every story (at least!). even al qaeda has reasons for what they do that are rational to them. i do not sympathize or agree with them at all, but we are not going to understand their position at all by defining them as bad or evil. we could counter their despicable acts much more effectively if we were well aware of the root causes of their gripes and their enlistees gripes. to us, they are evil, to them , we are the great satan...ok, if thats the conclusion, there aint nothing left to do but try to bomb the otherside out the ballpark.
You can argue ANYTHING without accomplishing a damn thing, but be assured there is a black and white bottom line answer to every issue, whether you or I agree with it or not. Not an answer based on politics, religion, big business or other "special interests" an answer based solely on what's best for humankind as a whole.
Man that is one big, big statement. I guess my experience just doesn't jive with that. Sure, it is easy to say that if we all shared there would be enough for everyone. However, given that people (and their institutions) are imperfect and the fact that there are so many mitigating circumstances for every situation, whether it be environment, chemistry or misperception, it is unrealistic to believe that there is one "right" choice for every decision. Shit is way too complicated.
It might be interesting for you to study the life of Mohandas Gandhi, a tremendous moral absolutist, who was one of the most pragmatic of all politicians/revolutionaries ever. While he always asserted that there were universal truths (his political philosophy, Satyagraha, literally means truth force) such as the superiorioty of non-violent action over violent action, Gandhi always made room for compromise in order to further his long-term goals. Often to the deep consternation of his supporters. He is one of my great heroes because his deep attachment to positive moral values was counterbalanced by a deep openness to the vagaries of life's journey. It is not for nothing that he called his autobiography "The Story of My Experiments with Truth". Looking at his life may offer a way out of the connundrum of an absolutist view of the world.
Of course I completely disagree with the idea that any country can give another people freedom and democracy at the barrel of a gun. It just seems to go against common sense and history, but that's what they thought and did.
You don't think that freedom and democracy has EVER been the end result of War??
There is a good article in the most recent NYT magazine that speaks to this issue. The article summarizes a book that challenges the most recent orthodoxy that democracy leads to peace and stability. Below is the article.
Are Democracies Really More Peaceful?
By GARY J. BASS Published: January 1, 2006 In his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush proclaimed that "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." Behind these lofty words lies one of the most powerful ideas in international relations. Neoconservative pundits like William Kristol and Lawrence F. Kaplan put the point plainly when they called for toppling Saddam Hussein because of "a truth of international politics: democracies rarely, if ever, wage war against one another."
The original author of this idea was Immanuel Kant. In "To Perpetual Peace," Kant argued that a world made up of republics, whose citizens must bear the miseries of fighting and financing wars, should be more peaceful than a world made up of monarchies, whose kings can go to war with little personal risk. (In a rare Kantian joke, the essay is written in the form of a peace treaty, with preliminary and definitive articles of perpetual peace.) In the 1980's, political scientists began looking for empirical evidence that Kant's prophecy had come true. Michael W. Doyle wrote that a separate "zone of peace" existed among liberal states, underpinning America's alliances with NATO and Japan. Although the notion has been subjected to fierce scrutiny, most scholars agree that a liberal peace exists - and that it offers a way to end the age-old scourge of war. The theory has been endorsed by leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and it played a role in the Clinton administration's efforts to create a worldwide "community of democracies."
Yet for all its influence, the theory of the democratic peace carries a crucial caveat. In a series of studies culminating in their new book, "Electing to Fight," the political scientists Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder argue that new democracies are often unstable and thus particularly warlike. Mansfield and Snyder note that democratizing countries often lack the rule of law, organized political parties and professional news media. Without those restraining institutions firmly in place, empowering the public can mean empowering bellicose nationalists. As communism crumbled in Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and Franjo Tudjman in Croatia used populist nationalism to fuel their rise to power - and to start a blood bath.
Mansfield and Snyder try to prove that young democracies without fully formed domestic institutions are especially aggressive; their examples range from France's disastrous 1870 attack on Prussia to Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus to Vladimir Putin's continuing brutal clampdown in Chechnya. At best, scholars agree, the democratic peace exists only when established liberal democracies face one another. Confronting nondemocracies, established democracies are about as warlike as normal dictatorships. Think of Britain, France and Israel's attacking Egypt in 1956, or Bush's invasion of Iraq. When a democratic government squabbles with a dictator, it often doesn't trust the dictator enough for serious negotiations, and war is a likely result. Elihu Root, who'd been Theodore Roosevelt's secretary of state, said in 1917: "To be safe, democracy must kill its enemy when it can and where it can. The world. . . must be all democratic or all Prussian."
The Bush administration might applaud Root's statement, but it's no small task to make the world "all democratic." Mansfield and Snyder cite writers like Samuel P. Huntington, who gingerly emphasizes that democratization works best in proper sequence: first establishing functioning institutions - political parties, courts - and then allowing widespread elections. Poland and Chile democratized successfully, Mansfield and Snyder say, but Iraq, it seems, has not. They warn that "unleashing Islamic mass opinion through a sudden democratization could only raise the likelihood of war." China, too, proves worrisome, lacking as it does political pluralism, a reliable rule of law or a professional free press. Greater political freedom - a longstanding American goal - could at worst empower more aggressive leaders in a nuclear-armed economic powerhouse.
Like many skeptics of democratization, Mansfield and Snyder may overestimate the stability of the authoritarians. Young democracies can be bellicose, but it's hard to imagine many regimes more threatening to their neighbors than Saddam Hussein's. The authors also appear to strain their argument when they suggest that Milosevic's decision to crack down on the Kosovars was driven by his anxieties over winning a future election, or that Iraq's faltering experiments in parliamentary democracy helped drive its 1948 attack on Israel. (After all, many Arab authoritarians also attacked.) And yet their work should give pause. If democracy is to promise peace - perpetual or otherwise - we must become far better at laying its foundations.
Can anyone explain why Indian Porn seems to be all the rage these days??
Where would a fellow find this sort of thing? It's not for me, but this friend of mine...
I, too, also have a friend who would not mind finding out more about this.
I'll go one better, I have an entire cadre of friends interested in this - from what I can gather, it's either daughters of Punjabi immigrants that have settled in the west or European (especially German) tourists ostensibly on vacation in the subcontinent itself cobbling together self-produced material...
Most of the Indian porn I have seen hasn't seemed to be particularly amateurish, although many do seem to speak English with a British accent.
This could be misleading. In Britain, reproduction is achieved over a good cuppa tea and a civilised discussion... we don't actually practice sexual intercourse! These accents you hear are probably due to the fact that call-centre jobs are out-sourced to India, were the staff are taught to speak with regional British accents for the benefit of Brits seeking advice on bills, bank account queries etc.
I would like to research this further however, and if any one can post a link I would be happy to verify the authenticity of these accents.
BTW, as ever, great research Motown, good to get a nice overview of Iraq problems.
Certainly you guys understand that at any number of the many conservative leaning websites there are guys who are just as well researched and eloquent as Motown making posts like "48 Reasons We're Winning The War In Iraq". And because they are all "like-minded" it's usually followed with a bunch of "atta boys" and "hallelujahs". But god forbid anyone question these "facts" they are usually rewarded with a gang mentality thrashing, not unlike what I've seen here at SS.
When I look at these "Conservatives" I can't help but believe that they think that they have "God" on their side which makes their ideals unconditionally correct and they look at the left as godless and immoral. I can't agree with this concept on any level.
And when I read a well written, well researched missive entitled "How We're Fucked In Iraq" I have to weigh it with the same skepticism as I do when reading the opposite, above mentioned rhetoric. And quite frankly, I'm not smart enough to determine which side is telling the truth....or even worse....if ANY of it the truth.
When I look at Liberals I see a group of folks who, for the most part, believe they are intellectually superior to those on the right and dismiss any conservative ideals as such. I can't agree with this on any level either.
Tripledouble hit it on the head when he said that we need to find a common denominator and use that to strive towards real solutions. To me this common denominator is both compromise and determining what's right vs. wrong at the most basic level. For instance, killing a human being is wrong....period. But if faced with the dilemna of having to kill 100 to save 1,000 the lesser of two evils has to be considered "the right thing to do".....regardless of race, ethnicity or societal status.
Instead of seeking a common denominator what I see happening on both sides is disrespect of how different people view the situation(s), name calling and holier than thou ridicule. And after reading endless renditions of what people consider the truth, which many times is diametrically opposed and contradictive of each other I can't help but think that the ONLY way to solve any of these problems is to get right down to the core of what's right and wrong. Sure, Al Quaeda can justify or rationalize killing innocent people....but guess what....it's fucking WRONG. And since I don't believe in God, I have to believe that punishment for such acts have to take place here on earth, at the hands of their fellow man.
And since I can't agree with either the liberal or conservative stance on the War in Iraq I guess I'm fucked.....but at least I've made that choice and am prepared to be ridiculed by both sides....you guys only get to enjoy half of it.
And since I can't agree with either the liberal or conservative stance on the War in Iraq I guess I'm fucked.....but at least I've made that choice and am prepared to be ridiculed by both sides....you guys only get to enjoy half of it.
That's a cop-out. If you can write posts like this, you're not too dumb to form opinions based on information and research. As others have pointed out, you're stuck in this black/white mentality, thinking you must choose between liberal or conservative. I consider myself neither, but I'm still very much against the war in Iraq. You obviously have a strong aversion to siding with a large, unthinking group, wanting rather to remain an individual with a unique perspective that only an individual can have. That's a good thing. But this "I'm not smart enough" nonsense is an excuse not to have to think. The situation in Iraq is complex and to assume we can distill it down to a simple black and white decision may be overestimating our intelligence, but I don't think that's anyone's goal here. Instead, people like Motown try to provide people with an alternative viewpoints to those of our current administration. I would rather not form an opinion without looking at multiple sides of an issue, and apparently you wouldn't either. So quit worrying about picking sides and start thinking about the issue.
And since I can't agree with either the liberal or conservative stance on the War in Iraq I guess I'm fucked.....but at least I've made that choice and am prepared to be ridiculed by both sides....you guys only get to enjoy half of it.
That's a cop-out. If you can write posts like this, you're not too dumb to form opinions based on information and research. As others have pointed out, you're stuck in this black/white mentality, thinking you must choose between liberal or conservative. I consider myself neither, but I'm still very much against the war in Iraq. You obviously have a strong aversion to siding with a large, unthinking group, wanting rather to remain an individual with a unique perspective that only an individual can have. That's a good thing. But this "I'm not smart enough" nonsense is an excuse not to have to think. The situation in Iraq is complex and to assume we can distill it down to a simple black and white decision may be overestimating our intelligence, but I don't think that's anyone's goal here. Instead, people like Motown try to provide people with an alternative viewpoints to those of our current administration. I would rather not form an opinion without looking at multiple sides of an issue, and apparently you wouldn't either. So quit worrying about picking sides and start thinking about the issue.
Ahhh...the old "You're either with us or against us" routine.....I have an opinion, and it's everchanging based on reading and asking questions...I just can't come to grips with EITHER of the two popular opinions that are currently out there with a line drawn in the sand and people pointing fingers at each other.
And seriously, what makes Motown's info any more or less accurate than anyone else's?? Other than if it reflects what you believe it's accurate and if it takes the opposite view it must be bullshit.
Certainly you guys understand that at any number of the many conservative leaning websites there are guys who are just as well researched and eloquent as Motown making posts like "48 Reasons We're Winning The War In Iraq".
This would only be true in their own reality because 46 reasons would be lies and the other 2 distoritions. I have seen the level of debate on conservative sites, and been banned from a few. The ones with debate are a hotbed of angry white male syndrome, the ones with researched articles are privately owned news outlets - no debates there. There are people on this site who could take them all apart for fun but there aren't enough hours in the day.
Please, please, please, please, please oh sage right-wing "independent" tornado alley libertarian supporters of Bush... Please, please CALL THE LEFT OUT WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG! And I don't mean call out John Kerry for supporting your unsupportable actions. Call out the left who demonstrated against the carpet bombing/inventory clearing in Afganistan, who SCREAMED LOUD and CLEAR in the Spring of 2003 that Iraq would be a quagmire, "opening the gates of Hell".
Please go back and examine recent history.
But this is impossible when you are scrambling to cover your intellectual asses over events that continue to unfold. This is also the problem for what's left of the left. There are so many lies that have gone unchecked because of the constant barrage of new lies and distortions that come out to prop up the SNAFU that we find our collective, tax-paying asses in.
And to say that the strut is a liberal haven is also to not really see the big picture. Yes, I'm sure the silent majority is slightly left of the DLC, but there have been quite a few instances in the past few months where the reactionaries have been the first to spout with sexist (Sheehan), racist ("looters"), and most recently corporatist (TWU are yuppies) bunk, and then proven to be very much mistaken in their analysis.
But they will keep bringing it, and will continue to son themselves without knowing it.
I'm thinking of starting a strut Political Nonfiction Book of the Month club. All sides could contribute and everyone would learn something. Then people could debate with actual concepts, philosophical ideas, and maybe even a few facts.
And seriously, what makes Motown's info any more or less accurate than anyone else's?? Other than if it reflects what you believe it's accurate and if it takes the opposite view it must be bullshit.
Come on dude, that's a cop out. There is so much info out there that you can verify anything you want to verify
But you are suffering from a condition known as cognitive dissonance. Once you get open, it's much easier.
And since I can't agree with either the liberal or conservative stance on the War in Iraq I guess I'm fucked.....but at least I've made that choice and am prepared to be ridiculed by both sides....you guys only get to enjoy half of it.
That's a cop-out. If you can write posts like this, you're not too dumb to form opinions based on information and research. As others have pointed out, you're stuck in this black/white mentality, thinking you must choose between liberal or conservative. I consider myself neither, but I'm still very much against the war in Iraq. You obviously have a strong aversion to siding with a large, unthinking group, wanting rather to remain an individual with a unique perspective that only an individual can have. That's a good thing. But this "I'm not smart enough" nonsense is an excuse not to have to think. The situation in Iraq is complex and to assume we can distill it down to a simple black and white decision may be overestimating our intelligence, but I don't think that's anyone's goal here. Instead, people like Motown try to provide people with an alternative viewpoints to those of our current administration. I would rather not form an opinion without looking at multiple sides of an issue, and apparently you wouldn't either. So quit worrying about picking sides and start thinking about the issue.
Ahhh...the old "You're either with us or against us" routine.....I have an opinion, and it's everchanging based on reading and asking questions...I just can't come to grips with EITHER of the two popular opinions that are currently out there with a line drawn in the sand and people pointing fingers at each other.
And seriously, what makes Motown's info any more or less accurate than anyone else's?? Other than if it reflects what you believe it's accurate and if it takes the opposite view it must be bullshit.
Dude, I really didn't want to get involved in this, but really man... Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions. Your suggestion that you can't get with either of the "popular opinions" suggests that you (like the mooks that run CNN, MSNBC etc) believe that both points of view are valid, and as a result are pitched into a morass of confusion when these supposedly equal ideas appear to be diametrically opposed. Look at it this way. President Bush said we needed to invade Iraq because under Saddam Hussein, with WMDs, posed a threat to the United States. This has been proven wrong. Ignoring this, the Bush administration has now decided that this is a fight for "freedom", and that those that oppose it oppose "freedom". In effect they changed the rules, were dishonest about it and continue to spin their interpretation of the situation out to the nth degree. They dress their failures up in propaganda, catch phrases and buzz words and question the patriotism of anyone that disagrees with them. The United States has proven woefully inconsistent (and consistently disingenuous) in regard to "protecting democracy" via military force. We've generally had ulterior motives, and have chosen our fights not out of some altruistic pursuit of freedom, but out of what will do the US (and it's industries) the most good. How is this our fight, and if it is, why did the Bush administration have to lie to get us involved? As far as "picking sides", why the fuck not? Sure there's a lot of conflicting ideas out there in regard to this war, but all you have to do is read it, take the source into consideration and move forward from there. Is it that you trust no one? There's spin from both the left and the right, but you still ought to be able to make a decision. Throwing your hands up and saying that conflicting data makes that impossible is a cop out. Spin aside, there are very clear demarcations between the "sides" here. Our government has lied to us repeatedly to get their way, and continue to do so. If their cause is just, why are they doing that? I mean, if you don't trust Michael Moore or his ilk, that's cool, but he's a filmmaker. George Bush is the fucking President, Dick Cheney the Vice President, Rumsfeld, Rice etc etc. Shouldn't they be held to an infinitely higher standard, and shouldn't our sense of betrayal at their lies be that much more extreme?
And since I can't agree with either the liberal or conservative stance on the War in Iraq I guess I'm fucked.....but at least I've made that choice and am prepared to be ridiculed by both sides....you guys only get to enjoy half of it.
That's a cop-out. If you can write posts like this, you're not too dumb to form opinions based on information and research. As others have pointed out, you're stuck in this black/white mentality, thinking you must choose between liberal or conservative. I consider myself neither, but I'm still very much against the war in Iraq. You obviously have a strong aversion to siding with a large, unthinking group, wanting rather to remain an individual with a unique perspective that only an individual can have. That's a good thing. But this "I'm not smart enough" nonsense is an excuse not to have to think. The situation in Iraq is complex and to assume we can distill it down to a simple black and white decision may be overestimating our intelligence, but I don't think that's anyone's goal here. Instead, people like Motown try to provide people with an alternative viewpoints to those of our current administration. I would rather not form an opinion without looking at multiple sides of an issue, and apparently you wouldn't either. So quit worrying about picking sides and start thinking about the issue.
Ahhh...the old "You're either with us or against us" routine.....I have an opinion, and it's everchanging based on reading and asking questions...I just can't come to grips with EITHER of the two popular opinions that are currently out there with a line drawn in the sand and people pointing fingers at each other.
And seriously, what makes Motown's info any more or less accurate than anyone else's?? Other than if it reflects what you believe it's accurate and if it takes the opposite view it must be bullshit.
Dude, I really didn't want to get involved in this, but really man... Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions. Your suggestion that you can't get with either of the "popular opinions" suggests that you (like the mooks that run CNN, MSNBC etc) believe that both points of view are valid, and as a result are pitched into a morass of confusion when these supposedly equal ideas appear to be diametrically opposed. Look at it this way. President Bush said we needed to invade Iraq because under Saddam Hussein, with WMDs, posed a threat to the United States. This has been proven wrong. Ignoring this, the Bush administration has now decided that this is a fight for "freedom", and that those that oppose it oppose "freedom". In effect they changed the rules, were dishonest about it and continue to spin their interpretation of the situation out to the nth degree. They dress their failures up in propaganda, catch phrases and buzz words and question the patriotism of anyone that disagrees with them. The United States has proven woefully inconsistent (and consistently disingenuous) in regard to "protecting democracy" via military force. We've generally had ulterior motives, and have chosen our fights not out of some altruistic pursuit of freedom, but out of what will do the US (and it's industries) the most good. How is this our fight, and if it is, why did the Bush administration have to lie to get us involved? As far as "picking sides", why the fuck not? Sure there's a lot of conflicting ideas out there in regard to this war, but all you have to do is read it, take the source into consideration and move forward from there. Is it that you trust no one? There's spin from both the left and the right, but you still ought to be able to make a decision. Throwing your hands up and saying that conflicting data makes that impossible is a cop out. Spin aside, there are very clear demarcations between the "sides" here. Our government has lied to us repeatedly to get their way, and continue to do so. If their cause is just, why are they doing that? I mean, if you don't trust Michael Moore or his ilk, that's cool, but he's a filmmaker. George Bush is the fucking President, Dick Cheney the Vice President, Rumsfeld, Rice etc etc. Shouldn't they be held to an infinitely higher standard, and shouldn't our sense of betrayal at their lies be that much more extreme?
I honestly believe that there are points being made on both sides that are valid....very few, but there are some.
I also wonder why Saddam didn't cooperate and comply with the 18 U.N. attempts to inspect for the weapons in question. Seems to me that if he had complied from the get go and no weapons were found the big Bush lie could not have been told.
Picking sides is what the problem is in this country and is why we're more divided today than anytime in my lifetime. How about the two sides JOINING each other on common ground instead of trying to place blame for what's already been done??
The posts today just confirm my theory that opposition to the right think conservatives are dumb.....and this is just not accurate.
Remember George and Tony promising to take that shit back to the U.N. Security Council? Well, they promised to do so, but then realised that might not get them the war they had signed up to (not for ha!)
Thus, no more facts were presented and Saddam was taken out in a "decapitation" strike. Oh yeah, he wasn't. Then we had some Shock and Awe. And then some more carpet bombing and destruction of essential civilian infrastructure, the stuff they thought they would be able to leave intact and deliver a fully functional free market democracy to a grateful Iraqi people. Can't remember where Mission Accomplished came in all that, but it was in there as well.
But I guess none of these fuckups would have happened if the left had been EVEN MORE OF A PUSHOVER and united 110% behind those in power? That's totalitarian autocracy, dude.
While you may be able to restore honor and dignity to soulstrut with your RR posts, with the politicalstrut you gots to either step your game up or walk away.
Sabadabada, maybe the veterans can correct me, but I don't think there's ever been a poster arrive here with so much credibility and then manage to piss it away within weeks. Nice job!
Some quotes for the day, grabbed from craigslist
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." [ Dwight Eisenhower ]
"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap." [ Ronald Reagan ]
Sabadabada, maybe the veterans can correct me, but I don't think there's ever been a poster arrive here with so much credibility and then manage to piss it away within weeks. Nice job!
you need to get over yourself. Its politics. Its a game that rich white people play and not worth getting all that worked-up over.
G.W. Bush - rich white people H. Clinton- rich white people D. Cheney - rich white people T. Kennedy - rich white people B. Boxer - rich white people
do you see a pattern forming? do you think their interests are THAT much different? One party gets its support from big business run by rich white people and the other from big unions run by rich white people and trial lawyers, more rich white people.
And if you dont agree with either party and are waiting for some third party to come along - well good luck with that. Chummmmmmmmmmmmmm p.
Politics is consciousness. I can't vote anywhere so I vote with my wallet.
You need to get over the Democratic whipping boys n girls that your AM radio guys keep putting in front of you. It's not what we are talking about here, nor ever have.
you need to get over yourself. Its politics. Its a game that rich white people play and not worth getting all that worked-up over.
G.W. Bush - rich white people H. Clinton- rich white people D. Cheney - rich white people T. Kennedy - rich white people B. Boxer - rich white people
do you see a pattern forming? do you think their interests are THAT much different? One party gets its support from big business run by rich white people and the other from big unions run by rich white people and trial lawyers, more rich white people.
So why are we even discussing this. Lets just let the christian fundementalist/ wal mart/ tom delay/ military industrial complex take over and then we can all sit on internet message boards and smuggly say how we were right, there was nothing we could have done to prevent the apocalypse (assuming we are not all under NSA surviellance by then). This is the kind of defeatist BS that resulted in this country electing shrub twice; young, educated people who with the slightest intellectual curiosity could do some research, and see that much of the conservative, trickle down domestic policy is indeed designed to exclusively benefit rich white people. Like any lefty, i have been disapointed by the democrats since, well, for quite a while. But they are still the party that says environmental laws, and school funding, and fixing the health care system are more important than tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare and Terri Shiavo. Isn't it the thought that counts? Even if you get steamrolled and ridiculed, doesn't acknowledging the real problems of this country count for anything? I agree, the democrats can be seen as compromised and generally less effiecient at using the media to their advantage, but even it comes down to lesser of two evils, is it really worth your time to sit here and dis the "sort of good" guys? The democrats are working with the power the voters gave them, which is not much. Although I disagree with much of Clinton's policies during his move to the center, I do remember a debate under Clinton about actual healthcare reform, as opposed to under Bush when the best we can hope for is a massive handout to Bush's pharma benefactors. (Hillary, who you classify as working for rich white people, was central to the attempt, blocked by the GOP, at healthcare reform) Not trying to attack anyone personally, nor am I trying to say how great the Dems are, but what it comes down to is whether you actually believe theres no hope, that you've completely given up? Why even post then, just to damp the spirits of those actually speaking up against the outrageous actions of Bush & co?
Comments
Oliver wasn't commenting on your political views being different than his or others. I think the main point of his original post was that you don't back up any of your posts. Rather you use hyperbole and stereotypes and general statements about things being right or wrong, white or black. Using facts would be a great asset to your arguments.
another important distinction is that in this case we are the aggressors, whereas in WWII we were reacting to axis aggression
o, i couldnt agree wiht you less. im surprised to see you even write this.
personally, ive learned a lot from polistrut: new information, new criticisms, and the depth that comes from hearing several sides in a debate. even if people do often stick to their guns on these threads, know that if they are being introduced to new perspectives or are having their views challenged, the seeds have been planted for growth and change. the political and social commentary is what redeems this site from record nerdery/snobbery and has been a huge catalyst behind our charitable efforts (who more political than Bamboosh?) know that seeds are being planted in any political/sociological discussion.
dont expect instant gratification from this stuff. we might never know what effects these discussions have. as ive said before, this country needs people to have open running debates and oratory in town squares, subway platforms, and the steps of city hall. if we all shut up about this shit, we resign oursleves to television educating the people and politicians robbing us blind.
rock, i see what youre saying about finding a common deonominator that will allow us to come to a conclusion and know where we stand. just remember that there are two sides to every story (at least!). even al qaeda has reasons for what they do that are rational to them. i do not sympathize or agree with them at all, but we are not going to understand their position at all by defining them as bad or evil. we could counter their despicable acts much more effectively if we were well aware of the root causes of their gripes and their enlistees gripes. to us, they are evil, to them , we are the great satan...ok, if thats the conclusion, there aint nothing left to do but try to bomb the otherside out the ballpark.
I don't mean to sound cynical but in my MANY years of seeing how debates play out online, it might be the lurkers who benefit but those actually posting up on their respective positions rarely seem particularly open to a wider spectrum of views and opinions. I think much of this has to do with the nature of the internet's lack of accountability. People feel like it's perfectly fine for them to talk out their ass and be pissy with one another. I mean, look at how every conversation about race on this site descends into the same talking points on all sides.
I don't include what Motown and Bam and others do around here since they're actually posting up essays vs. sounding like they're calling up on talk radio and ranting on some bullshit for a minute.
I'm not shitting on EVERYONE on Strut: we have some very informed and educated people who can speak, in depth, on many issues. Some.
Man that is one big, big statement. I guess my experience just doesn't jive with that. Sure, it is easy to say that if we all shared there would be enough for everyone. However, given that people (and their institutions) are imperfect and the fact that there are so many mitigating circumstances for every situation, whether it be environment, chemistry or misperception, it is unrealistic to believe that there is one "right" choice for every decision. Shit is way too complicated.
It might be interesting for you to study the life of Mohandas Gandhi, a tremendous moral absolutist, who was one of the most pragmatic of all politicians/revolutionaries ever. While he always asserted that there were universal truths (his political philosophy, Satyagraha, literally means truth force) such as the superiorioty of non-violent action over violent action, Gandhi always made room for compromise in order to further his long-term goals. Often to the deep consternation of his supporters. He is one of my great heroes because his deep attachment to positive moral values was counterbalanced by a deep openness to the vagaries of life's journey. It is not for nothing that he called his autobiography "The Story of My Experiments with Truth". Looking at his life may offer a way out of the connundrum of an absolutist view of the world.
There is a good article in the most recent NYT magazine that speaks to this issue. The article summarizes a book that challenges the most recent orthodoxy that democracy leads to peace and stability. Below is the article.
Are Democracies Really More Peaceful?
By GARY J. BASS
Published: January 1, 2006
In his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush proclaimed that "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." Behind these lofty words lies one of the most powerful ideas in international relations. Neoconservative pundits like William Kristol and Lawrence F. Kaplan put the point plainly when they called for toppling Saddam Hussein because of "a truth of international politics: democracies rarely, if ever, wage war against one another."
The original author of this idea was Immanuel Kant. In "To Perpetual Peace," Kant argued that a world made up of republics, whose citizens must bear the miseries of fighting and financing wars, should be more peaceful than a world made up of monarchies, whose kings can go to war with little personal risk. (In a rare Kantian joke, the essay is written in the form of a peace treaty, with preliminary and definitive articles of perpetual peace.) In the 1980's, political scientists began looking for empirical evidence that Kant's prophecy had come true. Michael W. Doyle wrote that a separate "zone of peace" existed among liberal states, underpinning America's alliances with NATO and Japan. Although the notion has been subjected to fierce scrutiny, most scholars agree that a liberal peace exists - and that it offers a way to end the age-old scourge of war. The theory has been endorsed by leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and it played a role in the Clinton administration's efforts to create a worldwide "community of democracies."
Yet for all its influence, the theory of the democratic peace carries a crucial caveat. In a series of studies culminating in their new book, "Electing to Fight," the political scientists Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder argue that new democracies are often unstable and thus particularly warlike. Mansfield and Snyder note that democratizing countries often lack the rule of law, organized political parties and professional news media. Without those restraining institutions firmly in place, empowering the public can mean empowering bellicose nationalists. As communism crumbled in Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and Franjo Tudjman in Croatia used populist nationalism to fuel their rise to power - and to start a blood bath.
Mansfield and Snyder try to prove that young democracies without fully formed domestic institutions are especially aggressive; their examples range from France's disastrous 1870 attack on Prussia to Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus to Vladimir Putin's continuing brutal clampdown in Chechnya. At best, scholars agree, the democratic peace exists only when established liberal democracies face one another. Confronting nondemocracies, established democracies are about as warlike as normal dictatorships. Think of Britain, France and Israel's attacking Egypt in 1956, or Bush's invasion of Iraq. When a democratic government squabbles with a dictator, it often doesn't trust the dictator enough for serious negotiations, and war is a likely result. Elihu Root, who'd been Theodore Roosevelt's secretary of state, said in 1917: "To be safe, democracy must kill its enemy when it can and where it can. The world. . . must be all democratic or all Prussian."
The Bush administration might applaud Root's statement, but it's no small task to make the world "all democratic." Mansfield and Snyder cite writers like Samuel P. Huntington, who gingerly emphasizes that democratization works best in proper sequence: first establishing functioning institutions - political parties, courts - and then allowing widespread elections. Poland and Chile democratized successfully, Mansfield and Snyder say, but Iraq, it seems, has not. They warn that "unleashing Islamic mass opinion through a sudden democratization could only raise the likelihood of war." China, too, proves worrisome, lacking as it does political pluralism, a reliable rule of law or a professional free press. Greater political freedom - a longstanding American goal - could at worst empower more aggressive leaders in a nuclear-armed economic powerhouse.
Like many skeptics of democratization, Mansfield and Snyder may overestimate the stability of the authoritarians. Young democracies can be bellicose, but it's hard to imagine many regimes more threatening to their neighbors than Saddam Hussein's. The authors also appear to strain their argument when they suggest that Milosevic's decision to crack down on the Kosovars was driven by his anxieties over winning a future election, or that Iraq's faltering experiments in parliamentary democracy helped drive its 1948 attack on Israel. (After all, many Arab authoritarians also attacked.) And yet their work should give pause. If democracy is to promise peace - perpetual or otherwise - we must become far better at laying its foundations.
This could be misleading. In Britain, reproduction is achieved over a good cuppa tea and a civilised discussion... we don't actually practice sexual intercourse! These accents you hear are probably due to the fact that call-centre jobs are out-sourced to India, were the staff are taught to speak with regional British accents for the benefit of Brits seeking advice on bills, bank account queries etc.
I would like to research this further however, and if any one can post a link I would be happy to verify the authenticity of these accents.
BTW, as ever, great research Motown, good to get a nice overview of Iraq problems.
what i heard about iraq in 2005:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n01/wein01_.html
theres an earlier one that he wrote as well that focuses more on 2003.
nothing that motown hasnt already broken down
Powerful stuff...
When I look at these "Conservatives" I can't help but believe that they think that they have "God" on their side which makes their ideals unconditionally correct and they look at the left as godless and immoral. I can't agree with this concept on any level.
And when I read a well written, well researched missive entitled "How We're Fucked In Iraq" I have to weigh it with the same skepticism as I do when reading the opposite, above mentioned rhetoric. And quite frankly, I'm not smart enough to determine which side is telling the truth....or even worse....if ANY of it the truth.
When I look at Liberals I see a group of folks who, for the most part, believe they are intellectually superior to those on the right and dismiss any conservative ideals as such. I can't agree with this on any level either.
Tripledouble hit it on the head when he said that we need to find a common denominator and use that to strive towards real solutions. To me this common denominator is both compromise and determining what's right vs. wrong at the most basic level. For instance, killing a human being is wrong....period. But if faced with the dilemna of having to kill 100 to save 1,000 the lesser of two evils has to be considered "the right thing to do".....regardless of race, ethnicity or societal status.
Instead of seeking a common denominator what I see happening on both sides is disrespect of how different people view the situation(s), name calling and holier than thou ridicule. And after reading endless renditions of what people consider the truth, which many times is diametrically opposed and contradictive of each other I can't help but think that the ONLY way to solve any of these problems is to get right down to the core of what's right and wrong. Sure, Al Quaeda can justify or rationalize killing innocent people....but guess what....it's fucking WRONG. And since I don't believe in God, I have to believe that punishment for such acts have to take place here on earth, at the hands of their fellow man.
And since I can't agree with either the liberal or conservative stance on the War in Iraq I guess I'm fucked.....but at least I've made that choice and am prepared to be ridiculed by both sides....you guys only get to enjoy half of it.
That's a cop-out. If you can write posts like this, you're not too dumb to form opinions based on information and research. As others have pointed out, you're stuck in this black/white mentality, thinking you must choose between liberal or conservative. I consider myself neither, but I'm still very much against the war in Iraq. You obviously have a strong aversion to siding with a large, unthinking group, wanting rather to remain an individual with a unique perspective that only an individual can have. That's a good thing. But this "I'm not smart enough" nonsense is an excuse not to have to think. The situation in Iraq is complex and to assume we can distill it down to a simple black and white decision may be overestimating our intelligence, but I don't think that's anyone's goal here. Instead, people like Motown try to provide people with an alternative viewpoints to those of our current administration. I would rather not form an opinion without looking at multiple sides of an issue, and apparently you wouldn't either. So quit worrying about picking sides and start thinking about the issue.
Ahhh...the old "You're either with us or against us" routine.....I have an opinion, and it's everchanging based on reading and asking questions...I just can't come to grips with EITHER of the two popular opinions that are currently out there with a line drawn in the sand and people pointing fingers at each other.
And seriously, what makes Motown's info any more or less accurate than anyone else's?? Other than if it reflects what you believe it's accurate and if it takes the opposite view it must be bullshit.
This would only be true in their own reality because 46 reasons would be lies and the other 2 distoritions. I have seen the level of debate on conservative sites, and been banned from a few. The ones with debate are a hotbed of angry white male syndrome, the ones with researched articles are privately owned news outlets - no debates there. There are people on this site who could take them all apart for fun but there aren't enough hours in the day.
Please, please, please, please, please oh sage right-wing "independent" tornado alley libertarian supporters of Bush... Please, please CALL THE LEFT OUT WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG! And I don't mean call out John Kerry for supporting your unsupportable actions. Call out the left who demonstrated against the carpet bombing/inventory clearing in Afganistan, who SCREAMED LOUD and CLEAR in the Spring of 2003 that Iraq would be a quagmire, "opening the gates of Hell".
Please go back and examine recent history.
But this is impossible when you are scrambling to cover your intellectual asses over events that continue to unfold. This is also the problem for what's left of the left. There are so many lies that have gone unchecked because of the constant barrage of new lies and distortions that come out to prop up the SNAFU that we find our collective, tax-paying asses in.
And to say that the strut is a liberal haven is also to not really see the big picture. Yes, I'm sure the silent majority is slightly left of the DLC, but there have been quite a few instances in the past few months where the reactionaries have been the first to spout with sexist (Sheehan), racist ("looters"), and most recently corporatist (TWU are yuppies) bunk, and then proven to be very much mistaken in their analysis.
But they will keep bringing it, and will continue to son themselves without knowing it.
I'm thinking of starting a strut Political Nonfiction Book of the Month club. All sides could contribute and everyone would learn something. Then people could debate with actual concepts, philosophical ideas, and maybe even a few facts.
Come on dude, that's a cop out. There is so much info out there that you can verify anything you want to verify
But you are suffering from a condition known as cognitive dissonance. Once you get open, it's much easier.
EXACTLY my point....you can verify anything you want to verify....on either side.
Is that anything like constipation because you may have saved me a trip to the Dr.
Dude, I really didn't want to get involved in this, but really man...
Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions.
Your suggestion that you can't get with either of the "popular opinions" suggests that you (like the mooks that run CNN, MSNBC etc) believe that both points of view are valid, and as a result are pitched into a morass of confusion when these supposedly equal ideas appear to be diametrically opposed.
Look at it this way. President Bush said we needed to invade Iraq because under Saddam Hussein, with WMDs, posed a threat to the United States. This has been proven wrong. Ignoring this, the Bush administration has now decided that this is a fight for "freedom", and that those that oppose it oppose "freedom". In effect they changed the rules, were dishonest about it and continue to spin their interpretation of the situation out to the nth degree. They dress their failures up in propaganda, catch phrases and buzz words and question the patriotism of anyone that disagrees with them.
The United States has proven woefully inconsistent (and consistently disingenuous) in regard to "protecting democracy" via military force. We've generally had ulterior motives, and have chosen our fights not out of some altruistic pursuit of freedom, but out of what will do the US (and it's industries) the most good.
How is this our fight, and if it is, why did the Bush administration have to lie to get us involved?
As far as "picking sides", why the fuck not? Sure there's a lot of conflicting ideas out there in regard to this war, but all you have to do is read it, take the source into consideration and move forward from there. Is it that you trust no one? There's spin from both the left and the right, but you still ought to be able to make a decision. Throwing your hands up and saying that conflicting data makes that impossible is a cop out.
Spin aside, there are very clear demarcations between the "sides" here. Our government has lied to us repeatedly to get their way, and continue to do so. If their cause is just, why are they doing that?
I mean, if you don't trust Michael Moore or his ilk, that's cool, but he's a filmmaker. George Bush is the fucking President, Dick Cheney the Vice President, Rumsfeld, Rice etc etc. Shouldn't they be held to an infinitely higher standard, and shouldn't our sense of betrayal at their lies be that much more extreme?
I honestly believe that there are points being made on both sides that are valid....very few, but there are some.
I also wonder why Saddam didn't cooperate and comply with the 18 U.N. attempts to inspect for the weapons in question. Seems to me that if he had complied from the get go and no weapons were found the big Bush lie could not have been told.
Picking sides is what the problem is in this country and is why we're more divided today than anytime in my lifetime. How about the two sides JOINING each other on common ground instead of trying to place blame for what's already been done??
The posts today just confirm my theory that opposition to the right think conservatives are dumb.....and this is just not accurate.
Thus, no more facts were presented and Saddam was taken out in a "decapitation" strike. Oh yeah, he wasn't. Then we had some Shock and Awe. And then some more carpet bombing and destruction of essential civilian infrastructure, the stuff they thought they would be able to leave intact and deliver a fully functional free market democracy to a grateful Iraqi people. Can't remember where Mission Accomplished came in all that, but it was in there as well.
But I guess none of these fuckups would have happened if the left had been EVEN MORE OF A PUSHOVER and united 110% behind those in power? That's totalitarian autocracy, dude.
While you may be able to restore honor and dignity to soulstrut with your RR posts, with the politicalstrut you gots to either step your game up or walk away.
Is it 2008 yet?
Some quotes for the day, grabbed from craigslist
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." [ Dwight Eisenhower ]
"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap." [ Ronald Reagan ]
Because my ideas on where the party stands, are as fresh and meaningful now as they were in 2004.
Sabadabada re: Sabadabada. I guess this is what they mean by the rightwing echo chamber.
You son yourself with every post, son.
you need to get over yourself. Its politics. Its a game that rich white people play and not worth getting all that worked-up over.
G.W. Bush - rich white people
H. Clinton- rich white people
D. Cheney - rich white people
T. Kennedy - rich white people
B. Boxer - rich white people
do you see a pattern forming? do you think their interests are THAT much different? One party gets its support from big business run by rich white people and the other from big unions run by rich white people and trial lawyers, more rich white people.
And if you dont agree with either party and are waiting for some third party to come along - well good luck with that. Chummmmmmmmmmmmmm p.
Politics is consciousness. I can't vote anywhere so I vote with my wallet.
You need to get over the Democratic whipping boys n girls that your AM radio guys keep putting in front of you. It's not what we are talking about here, nor ever have.
people you don't know about, couldn't know about, shouldn't know about.
There are many moderate muslims who only want to kill jews.
So why are we even discussing this. Lets just let the christian fundementalist/ wal mart/ tom delay/ military industrial complex take over and then we can all sit on internet message boards and smuggly say how we were right, there was nothing we could have done to prevent the apocalypse (assuming we are not all under NSA surviellance by then). This is the kind of defeatist BS that resulted in this country electing shrub twice; young, educated people who with the slightest intellectual curiosity could do some research, and see that much of the conservative, trickle down domestic policy is indeed designed to exclusively benefit rich white people. Like any lefty, i have been disapointed by the democrats since, well, for quite a while. But they are still the party that says environmental laws, and school funding, and fixing the health care system are more important than tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare and Terri Shiavo. Isn't it the thought that counts? Even if you get steamrolled and ridiculed, doesn't acknowledging the real problems of this country count for anything? I agree, the democrats can be seen as compromised and generally less effiecient at using the media to their advantage, but even it comes down to lesser of two evils, is it really worth your time to sit here and dis the "sort of good" guys? The democrats are working with the power the voters gave them, which is not much. Although I disagree with much of Clinton's policies during his move to the center, I do remember a debate under Clinton about actual healthcare reform, as opposed to under Bush when the best we can hope for is a massive handout to Bush's pharma benefactors. (Hillary, who you classify as working for rich white people, was central to the attempt, blocked by the GOP, at healthcare reform) Not trying to attack anyone personally, nor am I trying to say how great the Dems are, but what it comes down to is whether you actually believe theres no hope, that you've completely given up? Why even post then, just to damp the spirits of those actually speaking up against the outrageous actions of Bush & co?
Im comfortable with this.