Someone's Been Reading This Board Too Long

POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 06:18
VIEWED: 7792
PAGE 2 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:00 PM

Nothing scientific here, but it seems to me to be about 65% repetative or useless arguing/name calling, and 35% usefull/educational and truly excellent discussion. That's a very good ratio compared with most groups, I'd say. And sometimes the 65% can be quite amusing (but mostly not).

Select to view spoiler:

BTW, are you aware that DreamGeezer pulled a 'Freddy', and is now actually starting his own threads? How can he be stopped?

Edit: That's an overall average, some threads attain an 80 or 90% for real discussion, it's rare, but it happens.

All statistical Chrisisall

CREESO

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:07 PM

Ok, HK for some reason I feel compelled to throw in on this thread. Generally I’m a lurker and just recently started viewing the good ole FFF site regularly again. Strangely enough I do usually enjoy reading several of these real world threads. Seeing how I don’t actively keep up with what’s going on, these introduce some “news” that I normally wouldn’t see, as well as some varying viewpoints about said “news.” As an aside I did get a philosophy minor in college, so I guess I’m naturally drawn to civil debates. However I tend towards laziness and generally don’t want to take the time to find support for my opinions and ideas – thus I lurk. This thread, however currently seems quite laid back and very informal as opposed to most real word discussions, which I propose allows me the opportunity to state my opinions without feeling like I have to have evidence.

So now that I’ve pointlessly quantified and qualified everything you didn’t need to know about me, on to the post. First off I tend to cringe a little when people use conservative, liberal, the left and any other ambiguous, emotionally loaded terms. Granted sometimes it’s necessary and even accurate but most often they create an initial emotional reaction and often a gap in understanding. Unless the writer explicitly states the definition of such a word (which seldom happens online) we start off with a potential miscommunication from the beginning (as my definition of said terms could easily vary slightly or largely from the writers intended definition). So in a drawn out way I’m agreeing that most of the time people do “put words into others mouths” and can’t read and understand everything written. I’m just stating the obvious that some of that miscommunication comes in part from the slight or large variance in the “definitions” of the potentially numerous ambiguous terms.

And now onto the rage. During and shortly after the 9/11 attacks, I must admit that my reaction was disbelief - shock – then rage and the need for revenge. Heck at one point I was strongly considering joining the military. Then, realization and my questions set in. These were terrorist so joining the military wouldn’t help because you can’t effectively fight terrorism with an army (at the time I felt this was an obvious truth – a truth which I still believe). Then I wondered why this happened? Sure I came up with answers and possible reasons, though I’m sure they’re not entirely accurate and I’m sure I’ll never really know why. So, after my brain bested my initial emotions I hoped (though figured otherwise) that we would NOT respond with violence. That we would try to arrest those involved by using “proper” channels and not with bombs. That we would examine our foreign policy, perhaps even alter it, and begin trying to respect other countries’ wishes and rights a little more. I felt like this gave the U.S. an opportunity to open our eyes and to change for the better. To perhaps build even better foreign relations and correct some of our mistakes. It would seem as if we’ve managed quite the opposite.

Finally I want to touch on the religious aspects of politics. IMHO (as opposed to my dishonest opinion?) I think religion should have very little to do with the political scene. I think it’s great if a politician has found religion, it’s great if they want to share it and openly talk about it. However, it should be separate from their politics. They shouldn’t use politics to enforce/spread their religion onto others. Religious morals/“law” and social morals/law doesn’t always agree and shouldn’t if you wish to allow for personal freedoms. However, it seems as if the Bushites wish to force their religious “laws” onto everyone and define their political actions through their religion. That’s their mistake as far as “true” Christians are concerned. I heard Bush actually use the phrase “eye for an eye” in talking about retribution shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Now I may be mistaken (I’m basically a non-practicing Protestant), but this attitude comes from the Old T

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:27 PM

creeso, very interesting take, I haven't thought of those things from quite that point of view. You should do this more often.

Eye for an aye Chrisisall

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:15 AM

Very Well Put

Post more often, we have to push that %85 number down

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by creeso:
...These were terrorists so joining the military wouldn’t help because you can’t effectively fight terrorism with an army (at the time I felt this was an obvious truth – a truth which I still believe). Then I wondered why this happened? Sure I came up with answers and possible reasons, though I’m sure they’re not entirely accurate and I’m sure I’ll never really know why. So, after my brain bested my initial emotions I hoped (though figured otherwise) that we would NOT respond with violence. That we would try to arrest those involved by using “proper” channels and not with bombs. That we would examine our foreign policy, perhaps even alter it, and begin trying to respect other countries’ wishes and rights a little more. I felt like this gave the U.S. an opportunity to open our eyes and to change for the better. To perhaps build even better foreign relations and correct some of our mistakes. It would seem as if we’ve managed quite the opposite....

This, to me, outlines the tragic error in Bush's approach to all of this. After 9/11 we experienced unprecedented support and sympathy from the international community, Christian and Muslim alike. The skeptical among us might have doubted the sincerity of some of that sympathy, but it was real enough we could have used it. We could have leveraged it into a real, comprehensive effort to deal with terrorism. We could have supported and encouraged Muslims worldwide to turn their backs on the Islamist Fundamentalist movement.

Unfortunately, our leaders chose a path that has alienated half of the planet(more?), and given supporting evidence to the terrorists' accusations of American imperialism. It's as though Bush has set out to prove Osama bin Laden right. If anything, we've bolstered Muslim support for the terrorists rather that marginalized them. Sure, we've killed lots of them. But in the process we've only inflamed hatred for our nation and provided them with endless recruitment opportunities.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I was shocked when the ordinary people I visited with reacted so negatively to the attacks on Afghanistan. If a response was not justified in that situation then I submit no action EVER would be justified for the US in their view.

Now anti-US sentiment in Canada is off the chart.

I seriously doubt any sympathy towards the US more than just some brief sentiment for the families. Many Europeans deeply resented the US in the 1970's and 1980's long before President Bush appeared. Same in the Middle East and Asia.

Sadly, President Bush just brought it out in the open.

Andrew Lynch

I don't think anyone who was serious about foreign affairs had a big problem with how we dealt with Afghanistan. It was when we turned our attention to Iraq that things began to change. But your comments are very interesting, because I think they may get closer to the heart of what drives this debate than anything I've read.

If there is one consistent outlook that I've been able to identify in strident Bush supporters it is the sense that we are somehow 'standing up for ourselves'. They seem to see the situation as "they all hate us anyway, so to hell with them". It was a natural reaction after the shock of 9/11, but I think it's time we let reason and diplomacy take the reins.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:07 AM

Quote:
After 9/11 we experienced unprecedented support and sympathy from the international community, Christian and Muslim alike. The skeptical among us might have doubted the sincerity of some of that sympathy, but it was real enough we could have used it. We could have leveraged it into a real, comprehensive effort to deal with terrorism. We could have supported and encouraged Muslims worldwide to turn their backs on the Islamist Fundamentalist movement.

According to people who were in the Mideast and China at the time, people cheered as the towers fell. In any case, policy is not made by a population, but by its leaders. After all, look at the USA. Even though most people had not a clue who Saddam Hussein was on September 10, 2001 by September 2002 they were convinced he was the devil incarnate. www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html I've seen the same run-up to war before. Within two months, Panama was given a reputation as a major drug trafficking nation, even worse than Colombia. The hapless island of Grenada shared the same fate of coming into the USA crosshairs. And although my left-of-center buddies absolutely and totally disagree with me, the prelude to Gulf War I had the same set-piece quality: the come-on to Saddam, the moving goalposts (as Rue so aptly put it), the non-negotiable negotiations.

Most people prolly think I... and people like me... are fuzzy-headed liberals. Meek and peaceable, un-knowledgeable about the wicked ways of the world. And yet... and oddly... the people who are the most vengeful in their response to 9-11 were also the most surprised. They perhaps are the ones with the most illusions about the way the world really works.

I know that for all that I claim to have a deep (cynical) understanding of the world, I haven't answered DreamGeezer's question about what I would do. I guess that's for another post.

I apparently cross-posted with AJ. I find myself in the odd situation of agreeing with him.

RUE

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:21 AM

I have not dreamed of this board. But here are the things I thought after 9/11 which turned out to be bogus:

The US is a big country, an attack like this won't derail it;

this would be a good time to lay out a case against ObL in International Criminal Court - get some good PR for the US, do everything above-board, get the world totally on-board with the anti-terrorist thing; and,

the US population just wouldn't be so stupid as to be bamboozled away from ObL and into Iraq (it took a span of 3 weeks from 'DEAD OR ALIVE !!' to 'Osama who?' That freaked me out. And it's still that way today - going from kick-butt rage against him to complete indifference, as if he never existed and had nothing at all to do with 9/11.)

Anyway, I later came to believe, and still believe now, that for many Americans it didn't matter whose butt they kicked - even if it was their own. Yeah, the rage, need for revenge, the will to do ANYTHING rather than feel scared and defenseless was well exploited by Bush & Co. (Only now that the pain is coming home are some people beginning to re-think this particular choice.) And fear was also evoked over and over again by those very same people to scare everyone into thinking that somehow they were good protectors (though 9/11 did happen under their watch) and anyone else would be life-and-death dangerous. (Cynically, I wonder if at-home terror attacks will be allowed to procede, or even instigated by those people who live on US fear.)

As to DG's posts about 'liberals' (which I think means all who are not certified conservatives) - in the months after 9/11, I did think of a few things to do, which of course didn't get done.

Like using the ICC to go after ObL and staying focused in him and al Qaeda; engaging current allies and making even more all around the globe, united in the common cause of global safety and security; tightening up US borders; buttressing US morale instead of playing on fear, and rebuilding and strengthening the country; checking if US policies had outlived their original intent and ended up painting a target on the country, etc

In other words, responding to a fearful situation not with indifference or attempted-martyrdom, but with positive, realistic, and genuinely beneficial actions, and also with healing and positive goals.

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Sadly, President Bush just brought it out in the open.

Andrew Lynch

AJ, I totally agree with you on this. I think Bush has brought many, many things to light overseas and here at home that have been lurking in the shadows, largely ignored by the mainstream, but defining the international situation for years. Corruption in the U.N. (before Bush most of us saw the U.N. as a kind of international PTA); Europe's condescention towards America since, well, the beginning; our own slippery morals when it comes to covert ops and realpolitik (sure the conspiracy theorists and Amnesty International types knew, but now anyone you meet has an opinion on the appropriate use and missuse of torture). All these and more have rightfully come to the surface of public awareness. I think the European mainstream has been in big denial of America's potential as a global threat (the alternative was just a little too scary). We've always played nice in the past, and let Europe look down on us a little, as silly Americans with our quaint sex scandals and macho posturing.

Be that as it may, I did feel the world coming together right after 9/11. New York City was transformed; the city that embodied cynicism and distrust, that gave us Kitty Genovese and Bernard Getz, was suddenly the help-your-neighbor, we're-all-in-this-together capitol of the world. Russia and China both offered aid, fer cryin' out loud! "We Are All Americans" read the headline in France. In any case, whatever goodwill we received after 9/11 has certainly gone the way of the Dodo.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As to DG's posts about 'liberals' (which I think means all who are not certified conservatives) - in the months after 9/11, I did think of a few things to do, which of course didn't get done.

Like using the ICC to go after ObL and staying focused in him and al Qaeda; engaging current allies and making even more all around the globe, united in the common cause of global safety and security; tightening up US borders; buttressing US morale instead of playing on fear, and rebuilding and strengthening the country; checking if US policies had outlived their original intent and ended up painting a target on the country, etc

In other words, responding to a fearful situation not with indifference or attempted-martyrdom, but with positive, realistic, and genuinely beneficial actions, and also with healing and positive goals.

Rue, I'm contemplating posting a DG thread every week, just to read your responses! We have to get the "Rue for President" campaign off the ground!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE