quote:
we are entitled, and are in fact correct, to argue. that's one of the great things about being human and therefore blessed with the gift of free will and intellect (most of us, anyway).
Urm... sorry, not following your point... are you saying that my set of counter-arguments is inhibiting your right you an individual opinion? Hey, if you're going to defend your right to argue and disagree, I hope you will defend mine, too...
quote:
one of the prerequisites for an argument, unfortunately, is bias.
I think I get what you mean, but that is poorly phrased. You don't need bias in order to have a conversation. It is, however, something that pops up in discussions - to their detriment, I might add. I think it is also a mistake to confuse bias - which means, as I see it, an irrational, emotional, or selfish adherence to a viewpoint in defiance of evidence - with simple disagreement. It is perfectly possible for two people to disagree and argue coherently without either being negatively affected by bias.
quote:
my way of thinking is admittedly affected by what i take in from my surroundings and, being american, most of that is from other americans
Are you saying that this excuses you from an obligation to debate fairly? Bias is not a creed to live by. As far as intelligent debate goes, bias is an obstructive vice to be eliminated. I have a bucketful of bias too, but I try not to let it affect my judgement. I'm not always successful, but how often is anyone 100% successful at controlling their own subconscious?
You have a US bias. Fair enough. I have an Australian left-leaning moderate lapsed Catholic academic bias. Does that mean we simply can't argue? I hope not... I hope it just means that we may have to work a bit harder to reach concensus, or at the very least identify where our opinions fundamentally diverge, at which point we can agree to disagree without leaving the argument hanging.
quote:
[snipped stuff about the opinions of hypothetical Iraqis] ...however, as long as we don't have the input of those people, any fervent opinions in one direction or the other are pointless.
Okay, now I am completely lost. When did anyone in this thread try to argue on behalf of the Iraqi people? I can't be 100% sure about everyone else, but I know I was speaking from the perspective of international law, UN charter rules, and basic morality. If there is overwhelming support in Iraq for a US-led invasion, then I suppose that would make it okay... but has anyone tried to argue that there is or isn't? Sorry, but this argument of yours has just left me bewildered.
quote:
i did feel that someone should take up the pro-attack side of the argument...
Hardly a good reason to take up a case. Very few people defend the activities of paedophiles, but that is not a good reason to decide you're going to become an apologist for the world's kiddyfiddlers.
quote:
if only because everyone else was so disgusted and dubyah really did impress me by being so patient in waiting to attack afghanistan when every fiber of his body must have told him to nuke it out of existence at about 11 am on september 11th.
You're impressed because he didn't act immediately, irrationally, and in violation of a truckload of international laws? That's hardly a shining commendation. "He didn't fly off the handle and do something really stupid that would have had international repercussions for decades to come and cause untold numbers of deaths. I think he deserves a medal for that!" I think I would describe that as doing his fucking job not doing something impressive.
quote:
it's my personal theory that all of our foreign policy failings (read: irrational attacks) of the last fifty years stem from a collective guilt complex we sustain because we didn't jump into the second world war early enough and a shitload of innocents died because of that...
No, pretty much 100% of US foreign policy fuckups in the past quarter of a century have been caused by the government doing the will of its corporate masters, the people who pump hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign finance. Kuwait was about oil. Afghanistan was about oil. South America is mainly about creating a cheap labour force and a marketplace for overpriced vital services, like water and electricity. The WTO and IMF exist solely to shape second and third world countries into useful life support systems for western economies, mostly the US economy. If everyone in the world started getting a fair wage for their work, the US economy would collapse overnight, as it relies upon exploitation of foreign workers and consumers just to survive. Oh, and before you say it, these are facts that the WTO and IMF admit to freely. I am not throwing conspiracy theories about the place. This is the way the modern world works.
quote:
now, whenever we see another hitler, even if it's really just a windmill, we tilt at it.
...and if there is no new Hitler, the US government makes one. Are any of these names familiar: Pinochet, Noriega, Hussein, bin Laden? These are all people who were once paid, armed, trained, and even placed into positions of power by the United States of America. Osama bin Laden was a "freedom fighter" against the Russians in Afghanistan. Noriega was a friendly dictator who agreed to give the US easy access to the Panama canal. On and on and on... almost every US-backed puppet turns around and becomes next year's evil maniac. If you don't want more lunatics running foreign governments, tell your government to stop making the bastards.
quote:
i suppose this all boils down to a request for sanity. we're friends here, and there's no reason to descend to ad hominem attacks--which thankfully we haven't yet, but we're teetering close to that particular precipice.
Nah - most of us are just passionate, enthusiastic debaters. ObiJo and I, for example, are quite a long way apart on the spectrum of political beliefs, and we have debated about it. I'm still friendly with that psycho right-wing demagogue... ;)
quote:
there's never gonna be world peace, but the least we can do is all unite to smack around retarded newbies, right?
When I am in my less cynical moods, I believe there will be world peace some day. I doubt it will happen in our lifetimes, but the potential is there. The scary thing is that true world peace requires a real world government and judiciary. These things have never been possible before, but the technology now exists to make it a reality. Trouble is, as I said before, Western prosperity requires third world exploitation. There is enough wealth and food for everyone, but greed is a powerful and destructive force. If a world government starts to form, corporate interests will do their best to pervert it, control it, or destroy it. Considering most western leaders are in the pocket of big business, getting around such obstacles will be... a challenge...
Fuck, that was long. Sorry about that.
