Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RLV · 07-25-2003, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Leviathan
This thread has simply convinced me that when pressed on what people believe, on what they are *certain* about, yes, they're going to "tar and feather" you. It's fine: I enjoy it. I enjoy watching people get angry and out of control b/c they cannot defend their assumptions without getting angry.

I will only express my feelings about this, not those from the other members of the "conspiracy" against you.
I've been annoyed with you during this debate, but it didn't come from any feeling of not being able to defend my assumptions.

Actually, it was the other way around: you did such a bad job of defending your position that the debate was a funless repeating the same to you, to see if it prenetrated. My frustration came from your inability to listen to any reasoned argument and your resorting to repeating your claims to have proven something, when it was blatantly not the case.

IOW, had you debated with a minimum of ability and honesty, I would not have been bothered the least, even if you had trashed my positions.
As it was not the case, there wasn't much to do save to have fun with you.

Quote:

I believe the analogy is faulty, Side B has presented independant evidence here. If you will note my sources, not all of them, not even a substantial majority are from the "administration."

False: the majority are from the administration, as I've been pointing out to you.

Quote:

As I stated before, if someone is going to cling to the assertion (note assertion, *not* fact: thus, its a belief that is not justifiable) that the administration will "always" lie, all they have done is silenced the ability to debate with them.

Wrong.
I've never said that the administration will always lie. I've said that they lie whenever it suits them.

So, I don't trust them blindly, as you do. It's you who assume that they will always tell the truth. I consider that the administration sometimes will say the truth and sometimes will lie. Thus, I won't trust them, specially in a matter in which they have something to gain by lying.

Quote:

Additionally, since when is the New Straight Times a "pro-administration" source? If the best you can do is to look at evidence presented to you, and say, "biased, covering my ears," you shouldn't even reply.

I haven't claimed that they are biased. What they do is to quote government officials. And it is a reasonable suspicion that government officials are biased towards their own policy, isn't it?

Quote:

My simple point has been: if you cannot answer evidence, without starting your "critique" with whining about the source, and dodging attacking the warrants of the evidence, you're better off just having 'pat me on the back' posts, as we see in the first page of this thread. No one can have a debate on any given topic, if you're just going to assume half the scholarly material out there is "just wrong." The best example of this, I believe it was RLV: "they're entitled to their opinion, but they're just wrong!"

So what are we supposed to do when presented with flawed material? Are we to believe in any "scholarly" material, no matter what it says?
If I presented an scholar saying that it is completely clear that women have equal rights in Afghanistan right now, would you believe it?

I wouldn't. I would say that they are wrong, and this is what I did. Contrarily to you, I won't take anything the administration or any scholar says as an incontrovertible fact, out of faith.

Btw, in that precise example, there was nothing more that could be done. These "scholars" only said that the situation in Afghanistan was "a promising start". No explanation why, no data to support this. Just an opinion. What can one do with this?

Quote:

I believe I've done an adequate job of showing that these individuals believe in vast conspiracy theories, that gave Bush the election, that props up every political act we do around the world, as some large 1984-ish, premeditated act that will lead to the future enslavement of the human race. Forgive me if I see that as honestly stupid, being totally devoid of critical thinking, and in fact, killing it.

Again, I will speak only for myself.

May you quote me saying anything about Bush' election, conspiracies, or even Iraq and oil?

I just jumped in to correct a couple of the "facts" that you used in your arguments, that were blatantly false. I've only argued about them, and I've shown that your assertions (both the first ones, and the mutations on them that you tried) are wrong.

Any other red herring you want to throw is just of your creation.

Farren, I like your "heads talking, not legs walking" expression. Very apropos.

RLV

contracycle · 07-25-2003, 04:45 AM

Quote:

�To maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military-economic supremacy]... we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming.... We should cease to talk about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standard and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.... The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.�

� George Kennan
Director of Policy Planning
U.S. State Department
1948

Quote:

�The U.S.A. has supplied arms, security equipment and training to governments and armed groups that have committed torture, political killings and other human rights abuses in countries around the world.�

Amnesty International
�United States of America � Rights for All�
October 1998

Quote:

�If �terrorism� means �intimidation by violence or the threat of violence,� and if we allow the definition to include violence by states and agents of states, then it is these, not isolated individuals or small groups, that are the important terrorists in the world.

�If terrorist violence is measured by the extent of politically motivated torture and murder, ...it is in the U.S.-sponsored and protected �authoritarian� states � the real terror network � that these forms of violence have reached a high crescendo in recent decades.�

� Edward S. Herman
The Real Terror Network

Quote:

�I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these [Third World] nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the �haves� refuse to share with the �have-nots� by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don�t want and above all don�t want crammed down their throats by Americans.�

� General David Sharp
former United States Marine Commandant
1966

Quote:

�We have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. Our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony and maintain social stability for our investments. This tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and Peru. Increasingly the role our nation has taken is the role of those who refuse to give up the privileges and pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.�

� Martin Luther King, Jr.
�A Time to Break the Silence�
speech given at Riverside Church
New York City
April 4, 1967

Quote:

�What occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of clinical detachment. The bombing of the Murrah building was not personal, no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel.�

� Timothy McVeigh
trained by the United States Army

RLV · 07-25-2003, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Leviathan
Now *that* is a debate.
<rest schnipped>

Only from Farren's side, I'm afraid.

We have already dismantled all your unfounded assertions. We have explained slowly and clearly why they are not true. We have picked your individual items of "evidence" and we have shown them to be no evidence at all.
Farren has even given your a much more detailed and carefully crafted reply that you deserved.

And then you proceed to ignore all the points and to repeat the same one more time.

You said:
"The promotion of democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy in the last 50 years."

Now you support that with:

Quote:

The evidence indicates that past the "democracy promotion" of Reagan, there was a significant change due to increased social pressure from the democrats. An increased initiative to support democracy in a more "soft-power" manner.

Again, I've said it before: I never argued that the promotion of democracy is a success: few to no authors make such a proposal - but I *did* argue efforts were made."

You are arguing that putting bloody dictatorships in power and undermining democratic movements IS democracy promotion.

This is so obviously wrong that there is not much more to say.

The fact is that the US cared nothing about democracy in Latin America during most of the past 50 years. The US suppressed democracy and supported dictatorships whenever it suited their interests.
From the late '80s there was a shift in US policy, and it took a gentler way of serving its interests. There was some democracy promotion then, along with the usual support of US interests even if it supposed going against democracy. Note that it started in the last part of that 50 years span.

So, what you call "a cornerstone of American foreign policy in the last 50 years.", in reality, it has been a mixed approach during the past 15 years or so.

Not a cornerstone and not during 50 years.

What is left of your assertion?

You said that a democracy had been established in Afghanistan. Historical fact, you said.
Then you changed it to that the US was helping establish a democracy, and that you didn't say that it worked. Quite a change, I'd say, but anyway.

Your "evidence"?

Quote:

So let me get this straight: evidence from state department envoys, going over to Afghanistan, to discuss with leaders how to better improve the rights of women, is *not* good enough evidence for your "studies" analysis?

No, of course it is not enough evidence. You only have the official report from the state department. They could have been talking of the cultivation of poppy or of the latest results in the NBA, for all you know.
And even if they really talked about that, did they do anything? Talking heads, no walking legs (to borrow it from Farren

).

Quote:

Must we always bring in left wing, fresh out of graduate-school analysis in order for something to be "credible?"

No, you must bring independent evidence of something being done.
Do you see the difference with "official information of talking about something"?

And you repeat the same:

Quote:

"The administration has also launched a high-level initiative to improve political, economic, and cultural participation by women and combat discrimination against them. This effort began in Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime practiced what amounted to gender apartheid, and grew into a broad, sustained campaign focused on those governments that deprive women of political and economic opportunity."

Again, some official saying that they are doing great things.

Meanwhile, in the real world, in Afghanistan, women are worse than before, because (save in Khabul) they suffer the same religious/social oppresion in a more unlawful manner, and with the addition of greater insecurity.
The people exerting this oppresion are the very same warlords that the US is supporting. The very same warlords that have carved the country into de facto independent fiefs, where they rule with the same despotic manner as the Taliban did.

Do you notice a small difference between the "high-level initiative" and the things that the US is really doing.

This is quite striking, and underlines the problem with your way of thinking: you are a believer!

Quote:

You say, "I should add that I think its fair comment when critiquing US leadership to automatically count state department officials as suspect as it is not their job to be evenhanded or honest." This is a very, very bad assumption to make. Just like there are some bad, hypocritical Christians, does not make Christianity bad, likewise, some bad envoys and bad motivations do not decide the fate of every foreign policy action of the United States.

Farren's (and mine) assumption is the only one you can reasonably make.

We are not assuming that they lie.
We are not assuming that they say the truth (as you do).
We are just assuming that if they have something to gain, it is likely that they will lie.

We are skeptics. Of course!
Without further evidence, we are not going to believe Bush saying that Saddam had links to Al'Qaida, and we are not going to believe Clinton saying that he had no sex with Lewinsky.
And we are not going to believe that the US is promoting democracy in Latin America or Afghanistan just because some people from the administration say that they are doing it.

Don't you think this is the reasonable thing to do?

If you don't, do you want to buy a nice island on the Mediterranean? I'm a member of the Spanish administration, and I can sell you the island of Majorca for a reasonable price.

RLV

John K. Fitzpatrick · 07-25-2003, 07:55 PM

Leviathan
July 16, 2003 05:36 PM
> The control of oil is certainly important in the international arena, I won't be so silly as to argue it isn't, but it just doesn't make economic sense. The latest tally for fighting the war in Iraq, not to mention the continued efforts at reconstruction, has the bill in the billions of dollars. Numerous economists argue this could crash the economy, and make Bush lose the election. A cost-benefit analysis, as of now, seems to suggest oil *couldn't* have been the motivation, b/c the costs were too high, for benefits *way* too far into the future. While I'm no economist, and I certainly don't understand the intricacies of the social science, that at least makes sense to me.

This cost/benefit analysis assumes that the costs are born by the same people who reap the benefits. The benefits (mostly) are secured by the capitalist clique, while the costs (mostly) are borne by taxpayers and the Iraqi citizenry.

- John

Darwin26 · 07-25-2003, 08:09 PM

Hi John, it's a complex issue ... the oil thing, but it's simplied by default... what else is there...?
The rush to pre-emtive nonsense or killing off the innocent so they have a real good reason not to want you/USA... and the derelict assumption that the Inspectors were not doing their jobs ... toss in the lunacy or Wolfoditz and the thought that the Iraq Army, and police force would "turn coat" at the drop of a Shock an Awe high fashion war Statement ... kinda takes the mechanics out of the central reason for OIl and the US Dollar Market...
Meanwhile the humanitarian photos of the Dead Hussein Bros is another DESPERATE attempt to get civilian support...both here abroad and in our new black hole, Iraq.

RLV · 07-30-2003, 04:09 PM

Back to the initial topic of discussion ("was the invasion of Iraq because of the oil"), there is an opinion, based on some facts:
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8466

Quote:

In the short term, through the Development Fund and the Export-Import Bank programs, the Iraqi people's oil will finance U.S. corporate entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order 13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places oil companies above the rule of law.

RLV

07-25-2003, 08:09 PM	#95
Darwin26 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Encino, CA Posts: 806	Welcome Aboard Hi John, it's a complex issue ... the oil thing, but it's simplied by default... what else is there...? The rush to pre-emtive nonsense or killing off the innocent so they have a real good reason not to want you/USA... and the derelict assumption that the Inspectors were not doing their jobs ... toss in the lunacy or Wolfoditz and the thought that the Iraq Army, and police force would "turn coat" at the drop of a Shock an Awe high fashion war Statement ... kinda takes the mechanics out of the central reason for OIl and the US Dollar Market... Meanwhile the humanitarian photos of the Dead Hussein Bros is another DESPERATE attempt to get civilian support...both here abroad and in our new black hole, Iraq.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-25-2003, 07:55 PM	#94
John K. Fitzpatrick Banned Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 388	Leviathan July 16, 2003 05:36 PM > The control of oil is certainly important in the international arena, I won't be so silly as to argue it isn't, but it just doesn't make economic sense. The latest tally for fighting the war in Iraq, not to mention the continued efforts at reconstruction, has the bill in the billions of dollars. Numerous economists argue this could crash the economy, and make Bush lose the election. A cost-benefit analysis, as of now, seems to suggest oil couldn't have been the motivation, b/c the costs were too high, for benefits way too far into the future. While I'm no economist, and I certainly don't understand the intricacies of the social science, that at least makes sense to me. This cost/benefit analysis assumes that the costs are born by the same people who reap the benefits. The benefits (mostly) are secured by the capitalist clique, while the costs (mostly) are borne by taxpayers and the Iraqi citizenry. - John

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.