The Demonization of the Opposition

POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 20:50
VIEWED: 35776
PAGE 15 of 20

Quote:

---

Posted by SygnyM 7/20/04 Points (1-5) are all proveably true. What is Hitchen's problem with them? (1) and (2) can be found by looking up any general reference, (3) I found on the Unocal website a few years back when negotiations were underway (they were competing with an Argentinian company called Bridas, which got the bid- not that it did them any good), (4)- well Osama is till at large isn't he? (5) If you look up the "coalition of the willing" you'll find what I found- although listed in the coalition, Agfghanistan had NO troops in Iraq. (6) It is still too early to tell whether the troops have been "wasted", but this point is "divined" by Hitchens.

---

Well, how about posting his comments right after he lists these 6 items? Then you may have some insight into Hitchen's problems with them. Here they are in thier entirety btw:

Quote:

---

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

---

"Keep Flying"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon
Or to put it another way, to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger.

But sometimes when you charge your opponent with something, when you say he is a liar, or a flip flopper, those terms have meaning and the charge itself has meaning. Sometimes you have evidence which supports the conclusion, the label. And that has got to be dealt with.

---

I see this as combining the two categories that Rue talked about: personalization and demonization. Charging a single opponent with flip-flopping or lying would be personalization and might very well have some truth behind it. For example, John Kerry has changed his opinion on his vote as a senator in regards to the Iraq war (at least I think he has). So the charge of flip-flopping is leveled. Is the charge justified? I'll leave that for another discussion. George Bush, on camera, said that Hussein did not allow UN inspectors into his country. So the charge of lying is leveled. Is the charge justified? Once again, I'll leave that to another discussion. This, to me, is personalization. There is some element of truth to the two charges: Kerry did change his mind, Bush did say something that was wrong.

Demonization, in my mind, is when you label an entire group of people. The best demonizations have some kernel of truth in them but are incorrectly applied to a larger population. For example, I have personally heard some liberals say that we deserved 9/11. This viewpoint is NOT held by all, or even the majority, of liberals (my viewpoint). I have also heard some conservatives say that liberals (in the general sense of the term) think that this country deserved 9/11 and are therefore traitors. This is a demonization. For another example, I have personally heard some conservatives say that a homosexual dying of AIDS is God's justice for their evil ways. This viewpoint is NOT held by all, or even the majority, of conservatives (my viewpoint). I have also heard some liberals say that conservatives (in the general sense of the term) think that homosexuals deserve to die because they sin against God. This is once again demonization.

Now I've purposefully tried to give examples from both the conservative and liberal side in an effort to be balanced. But from my personal experience I see a lot more demonization coming from prominent conservatives than I do from prominent liberals. Does that make the demonization more wrong? No. Demonization as a form of argument is weak and a cop out for whoever uses it. It is, however, a highly effective strategy.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, I have said repeatedly that terrorists are a real problem. I'm not dismissing your concern as baseless. What I AM saying is that your fear is twisting your thinking.

---

Since you have already dismissed my thinking, there is no point in responding.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I see this as combining the two categories that Rue talked about: personalization and demonization. Charging a single opponent with flip-flopping or lying would be personalization and might very well have some truth behind it. For example, John Kerry has changed his opinion on his vote as a senator in regards to the Iraq war (at least I think he has). So the charge of flip-flopping is leveled. Is the charge justified? I'll leave that for another discussion. George Bush, on camera, said that Hussein did not allow UN inspectors into his country. So the charge of lying is leveled. Is the charge justified? Once again, I'll leave that to another discussion. This, to me, is personalization. There is some element of truth to the two charges: Kerry did change his mind, Bush did say something that was wrong.

---

I think your Bush example is flawed. I don't think that is what Bush said. But again that is another issue, altogether.

Lying I would consider unique. There is a difference between saying something wrong, a mistake of the tongue, using the wrong words, what have you. But lying is by implication, by definition, the willful telling of an untruth. You have to show that the defendent not only said the wrong thing. But also knew it was wrong when he said it.

While both are issues of, or revealing of the underlying character of the individual, one (flip flopping) is objectively provable. Look at his votes. The other requires a bit more research and probably mind reading. You have to show not only the statement, but prior knowledge that the statement known to the defendent as false when he made it.

But there is a more troubling aspect to this. Well several. The same people who are telling us Bush lied, told us not 6 years ago that lying was okay, when it involved their guy. So there is a problem of inconsistency here.

But even more important to me, is the implied argument that it poses. Since Bush lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, the entire operation is a bad idea. And that, I just can't buy.

I understand that especially in wartime, and it might be even more valid in this war, that secrets need to be kept. Even from the American people, like you and me, because we live in an age of communication satellites and CNN. There is no way to keep a secret amongst "just us Americans". You don't want the enemy to know enough to do us harm, unfortunately that means keeping secrets even from the American public.

Saddam was a bad guy, and was in violation of 17 UN resolutions. He also sits on one of the largest known oil supplies on the planet, in the heart of the middle east. But more importantly, he was one of many corrupt thugocracies in that region that was the root cause of terrorism in the first place.

Part of the purpose of the Iraq campaign was to start the transformation of the Middle East, to allow it to evolve into a more free, prosperous and thereby, less dangerous area of the world. To show Muslims that, Zarqiwi is wrong. Islam can be democratic, that they are not incompatible concepts.

But, saying so prior to the war would have scared the heck out of the other states in the region. None of them particularly liked Saddam, he'd been a hazard in the region long enough to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. But if it were widely known that Saddam was simply the beginning of a policy that would lead to job loss amongst Iranian mullahs, Saud princes, or Syrian despots, it is likely they would have helped out a fellow Muslim, as loathsome as they may find him, to prevent another "infidel crusade". Instead of facing one army, we might have had face maybe 4, maybe more. More death on both sides.

Unless one can argue that keeping Saddam in power was a good thing, how we got rid of him, what was said by who to convince folks to do the right thing, I don't think it matters a whole lot. But it does point to an apparent difference between the political left and right, at least as far as rhetoric goes.

For the left, it appears that intentions determ

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Drakon, all I can say is "You started it". Yes, I know it's a three-year-old response, but I (and many others, especially Rue) tried bringing facts with multiple links to the discussion, I've tried questioning you intensely to get you to start at your basic assumptions and explain step by step how you got to a point, I've tried showing you what I thought were logical fallacies in your thinking, and you basically didn't respond. It was literally a conscious decision on my part to try using your tactics to see what would happen. If you look through my posts to you, you'll see a sudden tone shift about five posts ago.

You want people to argue with you using your definitions, your assumptions, your binary choices, your priorities, your facts. And you know what? IF we were to do all that we'd probably agree with you! But we DON'T share a lot of the same definitions, assumptions, etc. That's why we have a differences of opinion. And in order to have a discussion, we need to pinpoint where and why we disagree, then hash out whether one of us has better information, more durable assumptions, clearer definitions, better predictive capability etc. If this sounds condescending then I apologize, but this is has been my experience with deep heavy-duty discussions.

If we want to continue- and I sure don't mind- let's stop the rhetorical bs. Let's agree to stop name-calling, straw-man arguments, generalizing etc. Let's agree to address each other's points DIRECTLY, and stay on-topic until the point is either resolved or at least the fundamental differences are laid out. I really can't respond to long multi-point posts because I only get a few minutes here and there.

If this were a real debate, we'd have a moderator- but I can't see anyone voluntarily stepping in between us! We'll just have to resolve our differences on our own.

Is this something you can agree to? I can if you can. If so, let's begin!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

"Saddam was a bad guy, and was in violation of 17 UN resolutions."

---

And that is one of the issues of this topic. Most countries did NOT think he was in violation - and that is why the UN didn't support the invasion. To assert that he was is to mistake an opinion for a fact.

Quote:

---

"he was one of many corrupt thugocracies in that region that was the root cause of terrorism in the first place"

---

You will find that the 9/11 Commisions refutes Hussein's connection with terrorism.

Quote:

---

"Part of the purpose of the Iraq campaign was to start the transformation of the Middle East, to allow it to evolve into a more free, prosperous and thereby, less dangerous area of the world."

---

A post facto reason, not made before the invasion.

Quote:

---

"But, saying so prior to the war would have scared the heck out of the other states in the region."

---

Bush lied?

Quote:

---

"Unless one can argue that keeping Saddam in power was a good thing, how we got rid of him, what was said by who to convince folks to do the right thing, I don't think it matters a whole lot."

---

But it does, not as a moral issue, but a practical one. To have defanged Hussein using ongoing inspections WITH world support would have lent a tremendous boost to global anti-terrorism coordination.

Quote:

---

I see altruism as a con game.

---

Reproduction is altruistic in the biological sense (they're still trying to figure out how it works, mathematically speaking). And for humans (due to dependent offspring - they don't swim away fast as their little tails can go), it is altruistic in the psychological sense. The fact one can cognate 'altruism' indicates a internal altruism mechanism.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

This response is an experiment on my part. There are two assumptions I will make. The first is that you are a supporter of Bush. The second is that you are a supporter of the Republican party.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon
I think your Bush example is flawed. I don't think that is what Bush said. But again that is another issue, altogether.

---

So what I did was set up a comparison between an attack made against Kerry and an attack made against Bush. The first thing you did was invalidate the comparison by saying that you didn't think Bush said that. So let's address that first point. The following link is from the White House web site:

Quote:

---

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.
George Bush - 14 July 2003

---

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html
Now here is what I said in my post, "George Bush, on camera, said that Hussein did not allow UN inspectors into his country." From my point of view I have provided clear evidence that Bush did indeed say what I attributed to him. An interesting side note: Bush made these statements with Kofi Annan at his side. Annan does not correct what Bush is saying. I found that intriguing.

The next point you make is to define what lying is:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon
Lying I would consider unique. There is a difference between saying something wrong, a mistake of the tongue, using the wrong words, what have you. But lying is by implication, by definition, the willful telling of an untruth. You have to show that the defendant not only said the wrong thing. But also knew it was wrong when he said it.

---

This is the often used defense for those who support Bush: to categorize what he says as misstatements, rather than lies, because he either does not intend to mislead or he does not know the statement he is making is false. Bush's statement is clearly wrong. The UN inspectors were in Iraq. They left before we invaded. We did not invade because Hussein did not allow the inspectors in. So the first test is: Did Bush know the statement he was making was false? Well, he made the following statement four months earlier as part of his ultimatum to Hussein:

Quote:

---

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.
George Bush - 17 March 2003

---

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
So two possibilities arise: either he remembered what he had said four months earlier or he did not. Neither option is flattering. To go from "hundreds of weapons inspectors" to "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in" in four months time is pretty remarkable. Now if he forgot what he had said four months earlier (and had been saying for months before that) then he is incompetent. If he remembered what he had said four months earlier then he knew that his new statement was wrong, and he used it anyway, and used it as justification for the invasion, and that is a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon
While both are issues of, or revealing of the underlying character of the individual, one (flip flopping) is objectively provable. Look at his votes. The other requires a bit more research and probably mind reading. You have to show not only the statement, but prior knowledge that the statement known to the defendant as false when h

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME