The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
I wasn't just talking about the Pakistan situation . . but generally, if people could here the issues rather than just how FOX thinks of the issues . .. or, doesn't even talk of them at all . . .
there is so much information about how BushCo mishandled the country on so many levels, Iraq, Terrorism, as well as in other realms: Environment, Medicair, Spending on and on . . . . and none of it is getting seen or digested or reflected on at all . . .
& people who just IDENTIFY with the PARTY, well, it doesn't matter what comes out about Bush, or from Bush, or from any body that was once in BushCo . . it is all good . . ..
The fact is that the things I was saying with regard to Iraq and pakistan were very unpopular at the time and met with comments that treated them as conspiracy theories. Pakistan was generally viewed in the light the Bush admin portrayed it in: that it was our strong ally in the war against terror and did everything in its power to attack terrorists within pakistan's borders.
There is no denying that almost across the board, Iraq was viewed as the main WMD threat to the US and the world, particularly in terms of terrorists getting their hands on WMDs.
All of this ignored the facts that are now becoming undeniable.
And the biggest problem: while this admin has waged this war against Iraq, nuke parts were getting shipped around the globe in american c-130s and al-qaeda has been relatively left alone in pakistan to regroup and work on future attacks.
There should be no need for justification for a major war in such a volitile global situation to be wholly independent from the one(s) put forward by the governing administration. That in itself is a MAJOR problem.
And I agree with all of that. But what is the point? To reinforce you're own position to yourself, or just an "I told you so"?
And I agree with all of that. But what is the point? To reinforce you're own position to yourself, or just an "I told you so"?
Let me make it a little clearer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
& people who just IDENTIFY with the PARTY, well, it doesn't matter what comes out about Bush, or from Bush, or from any body that was once in BushCo . . it is all good . . ..
And the exact same thing can be said for all those who see only bad all the time. There are very few people who post in these threads with any sort of neutrality.
And I agree with all of that. But what is the point? To reinforce you're own position to yourself, or just an "I told you so"?
You are taking this all too personal the way you frame your replies.
In another post above of yours you ask if you are smarter because you know your transmission better than most and you asked does that make you more intelligent. That is not the point.
My point earlier when I said I wish more people had a higher level of understanding was simply so we can ask the right questions of those in our government who should represent we the people. First we the people must be engaged however if we are to preserve our freedom loving democracy. When the people are unaware, deceived, blinded to what is going on we take a steep risk of losing our democracy as we know it.
I am not trying to prove anything, I suspect giant is not trying to prove anything.
I am only saying the world is a dangerous place and we need to do what we can to understand where we stand in this world.
I'm sure to you this is the case, but in this instance you are simply wrong.
Well, considering the Bush admin tried every justification in the book, I'm really curious what this mystery justification of your is. Was you favorite candy manufactured there or something and you couldn't get it because of the sanctions?
Because to think that you access to al-hasim gumdrops is somehow more important than the globalization of nuclear tech, particularly to terrorists, is really a big sign of being uninformed.
You are taking this all too personal the way you frame your replies.
Actually I'm not taking any of it personally.
Quote:
In another post above of yours you ask if you are smarter because you know your transmission better than most and you asked does that make you more intelligent. That is not the point.
My point earlier when I said I wish more people had a higher level of understanding was simply so we can ask the right questions of those in our government who should represent we the people. First we the people must be engaged however if we are to preserve our freedom loving democracy. When the people are unaware, deceived, blinded to what is going on we take a steep risk of losing our democracy as we know it.
It is the point. You said giant had some higher knowledge for pointing out things that were quite common knowledge. People disagree about wether we should've went into Iraq or not, wether Pakistan should've been taken into account before Iraq... etc. This doesn't make anyone more or less informed or intelligent. It means people have different opinions on the situations and about the need to deal with those situations.
Quote:
I am not trying to prove anything, I suspect giant is not trying to prove anything.
I don't think you're trying to prove anything, nor do i think giant is. It was that his post of links to former posts where he has "right" was pretty much out of context of the discussion. It was just a reply to your post where he said "You're right. And I was right too a while back. Look and see."
Quote:
I am only saying the world is a dangerous place and we need to do what we can to understand where we stand in this world.
okay, but I'm not really debating that, rather the implication we all need to reach giants level of intellect.
Well, considering the Bush admin tried every justification in the book, I'm really curious what this mystery justification of your is. Was you favorite candy manufactured there or something and you couldn't get it because of the sanctions?
Justification is not the point. The point is that if someone believes it is better to first have Saddam Hussein removed from his position of leadership in Iraq than it is to deal with pakistan, that does not make them misinformed. They simply have a different opinion as to the order in which to approach all the situations that need resolution.
[B]He's not saying that, nor am I. Note my initial post in response.[/b
Yes, it's exactly what he said:
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Thanks, but I don't deserve any credit
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Sure you do, I wish more americans were informed to a higher level.
Fellows
Quote:
You have a grudge. Fine.
Why do you say that?
Quote:
Thanks anyway, fellowship. I guess it goes to show that you can't say anything nice about anyone on AO without a firestorm.
Sure he can. If my disagreement with you and him equates to a firestorm, then I guess you're right. But if my opposing viewpoint is respected in the least, then it is not. Notice I have been civil and mature with the both of you. What else should I do?
Justification is not the point ... They simply have a different opinion as to the order in which to approach all the situations that need resolution.
Justification is entirely the point. We aren't throwing darts at a map. The 'war on terror' and all foreign policy should be calculated in detail.
So where is the justification with neglecting al-qaeda and the situations in pakistan to go after Iraq? The situation in pakistan was and still is urgent. Iraq was not. Saddam was progressively losing his grip on his country. There were no weapons. The top section of his country was already out of his control, we had numerous groups we could have used to unseat him and the massacres that were going on in the 80s and after the first gulf war were not currently being executed.
Contrast that to pakistan, where al-qaeda was and is holed-up and nulcear tech was being spread globally. Afghanistan has had strong internal struggles, so much so that it now looks like Osama, Al-Zawahiri and Omar may have possibly returned.
Normally one would say hindsight is 20/20, but as I pointed out, at least a few of us recognized these things at the time.
Justification is entirely the point. We aren't throwing darts at a map. The 'war on terror' and all foreign policy should be calculated in detail.
So where is the justification with neglecting al-qaeda and the situations in pakistan to go after Iraq. The situation in pakistan was and still is urgent. Iraq was not. Saddam was progressively losing his grip on his country. There were no weapons. The top section of his country was already out of his control, we had numerous groups we could have used to unseat him and the massacres that were going on in the 80s and after the first gulf war were not currently being executed.
Contrast that to pakistan, where al-qaeda was and is holed-up and nulcear tech was being spread globally. Afghanistan has had strong internal struggles, so much so that it now looks like Osama, Al-Zawahiri and Omar may have possibly returned.
Giant, please take a deep breath for a second.
Okay, now you asked for my personal justification, and I said my own personal justification was not the point.
My point all along has been that just because someone chooses not think that dealing with Pakistan before Iraq was the way to go does not make them misinformed. It is their opinion and they have every right to come to that opinion and not be considered of lower intelligence for doing so.
My point all along has been that just because someone chooses not think that dealing with Pakistan before Iraq was the way to go does not make them misinformed. It is their opinion and they have every right to come to that opinion and not be considered of lower intelligence for doing so.
No one is saying that other people can't have opinions, but opinions that do not deal with the facts are wrong.
For example: someone might hold the opnion that the best way to drive a car foward would be to first put it into neutral, turn off the engine and then press on the gas. They are entitled to hold that opinion, but that opinion is not correct no matter which way you slice it.
Just because someone has the right to formulate an opinion absolutely does not automatically make that opinion accurate.
Another example. Hoagland has the opinion that NASA is hiding evidence of alien civilizations on mars, and he has the right to that opinion, but his opinion is clearly not in line with the facts. (see link)
Pakistan would not hand over Khan because the US doesn't want him to.
This is the leap in logic that simply eludes me, Giant.
Aside from the general "Bush is evil" doctrine your side holds to, I can't see how this thinking holds up to scrutiny.
The same crowd saying 'Bush should have acted on this' is the EXACT SAME crowd that's always crowing about why the US should not act unilaterally, and work through UN channels.
Furthermore, you seem to prefer to believe the fiction that Bush is involved in a "conspiracy" here rather than the logical assumption that Musharraf can't touch this guy without setting off a revolution in a country with 150 million people.
With China, India, the Koreas and Russia in the mix, I would say Bush is doing the only prudent thing he can. Which is to keep this thing from spiralling out of control.
No one is saying that other people can't have opinions, but opinions that do not deal with the facts are wrong.
For example: someone might hold the opnion that the best way to drive a car foward would be to first put it into neutral, turn off the engine and then press on the gas. They are entitled to hold that opinion, but that opinion is not correct no matter which way you slice it.
Just because someone has the right to formulate an opinion absolutely does not automatically make that opinion accurate.
Another example. Hoagland has the opinion that NASA is hiding evidence of alien civilizations on mars, and he has the right to that opinion, but his opinion is clearly not in line with the facts. (see link)
And I never claimed a different opinion was automatically correct or of equal value to others. But you must also recognize the fact that despite your obviously well researched opinion on many things political, you are not always going to be correct, or the most accurate interpreter of every situation.
When people are presented with several issues that need dealing with, and decide on different ways of dealing with them, that does not make one person more right than the other. There is more than one road to any given destination.
Quote:
Let me make it a little clearer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
Yes it does.
If you think that statement is correct and justified, then I'll just agree to leave it at that.
Fellows said giant was more informed, not more intelligent. There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom and all that. Ignorance and stupidity, genius and learned....etc.
Fellows said giant was more informed, not more intelligent. There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom and all that. Ignorance and stupidity, genius and learned....etc.
Justification is not the point. The point is that if someone believes it is better to first have Saddam Hussein removed from his position of leadership in Iraq than it is to deal with pakistan, that does not make them misinformed. They simply have a different opinion as to the order in which to approach all the situations that need resolution.
Sorry but justifacation is everything. The president had to lie to get the ball rolling on this. That makes it wrong no matter what the outcome.
But you must also recognize the fact that despite your obviously well researched opinion on many things political, you are not always going to be correct, or the most accurate interpreter of every situation.
Of course.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
..All it's about is digesting public information from varied sources, forming opinions after learning the facts and then always trying to prove your own beliefs wrong to see if they hold water.
That's the great thing about internet, usenet and listserv discussions and blogs. You can get other, more dogmatic people to do that last part for you.
Comments
Originally posted by rageous
The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
I wasn't just talking about the Pakistan situation . . but generally, if people could here the issues rather than just how FOX thinks of the issues . .. or, doesn't even talk of them at all . . .
there is so much information about how BushCo mishandled the country on so many levels, Iraq, Terrorism, as well as in other realms: Environment, Medicair, Spending on and on . . . . and none of it is getting seen or digested or reflected on at all . . .
& people who just IDENTIFY with the PARTY, well, it doesn't matter what comes out about Bush, or from Bush, or from any body that was once in BushCo . . it is all good . . ..
Originally posted by giant
The fact is that the things I was saying with regard to Iraq and pakistan were very unpopular at the time and met with comments that treated them as conspiracy theories. Pakistan was generally viewed in the light the Bush admin portrayed it in: that it was our strong ally in the war against terror and did everything in its power to attack terrorists within pakistan's borders.
There is no denying that almost across the board, Iraq was viewed as the main WMD threat to the US and the world, particularly in terms of terrorists getting their hands on WMDs.
All of this ignored the facts that are now becoming undeniable.
And the biggest problem: while this admin has waged this war against Iraq, nuke parts were getting shipped around the globe in american c-130s and al-qaeda has been relatively left alone in pakistan to regroup and work on future attacks.
There should be no need for justification for a major war in such a volitile global situation to be wholly independent from the one(s) put forward by the governing administration. That in itself is a MAJOR problem.
And I agree with all of that. But what is the point? To reinforce you're own position to yourself, or just an "I told you so"?
Originally posted by rageous
And I agree with all of that. But what is the point? To reinforce you're own position to yourself, or just an "I told you so"?
Let me make it a little clearer:
Originally posted by rageous
The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
Yes it does.
Originally posted by pfflam
& people who just IDENTIFY with the PARTY, well, it doesn't matter what comes out about Bush, or from Bush, or from any body that was once in BushCo . . it is all good . . ..
And the exact same thing can be said for all those who see only bad all the time. There are very few people who post in these threads with any sort of neutrality.
Originally posted by rageous
And I agree with all of that. But what is the point? To reinforce you're own position to yourself, or just an "I told you so"?
You are taking this all too personal the way you frame your replies.
In another post above of yours you ask if you are smarter because you know your transmission better than most and you asked does that make you more intelligent. That is not the point.
My point earlier when I said I wish more people had a higher level of understanding was simply so we can ask the right questions of those in our government who should represent we the people. First we the people must be engaged however if we are to preserve our freedom loving democracy. When the people are unaware, deceived, blinded to what is going on we take a steep risk of losing our democracy as we know it.
I am not trying to prove anything, I suspect giant is not trying to prove anything.
I am only saying the world is a dangerous place and we need to do what we can to understand where we stand in this world.
with respect,
fellows
Originally posted by giant
Let me make it a little clearer:
Yes it does.
No, it does not.
I'm sure to you this is the case, but in this instance you are simply wrong.
Originally posted by rageous
I'm sure to you this is the case, but in this instance you are simply wrong.
Well, considering the Bush admin tried every justification in the book, I'm really curious what this mystery justification of your is. Was you favorite candy manufactured there or something and you couldn't get it because of the sanctions?
Because to think that you access to al-hasim gumdrops is somehow more important than the globalization of nuclear tech, particularly to terrorists, is really a big sign of being uninformed.
Originally posted by Fellowship
You are taking this all too personal the way you frame your replies.
Actually I'm not taking any of it personally.
Quote:
In another post above of yours you ask if you are smarter because you know your transmission better than most and you asked does that make you more intelligent. That is not the point.
My point earlier when I said I wish more people had a higher level of understanding was simply so we can ask the right questions of those in our government who should represent we the people. First we the people must be engaged however if we are to preserve our freedom loving democracy. When the people are unaware, deceived, blinded to what is going on we take a steep risk of losing our democracy as we know it.
It is the point. You said giant had some higher knowledge for pointing out things that were quite common knowledge. People disagree about wether we should've went into Iraq or not, wether Pakistan should've been taken into account before Iraq... etc. This doesn't make anyone more or less informed or intelligent. It means people have different opinions on the situations and about the need to deal with those situations.
Quote:
I am not trying to prove anything, I suspect giant is not trying to prove anything.
I don't think you're trying to prove anything, nor do i think giant is. It was that his post of links to former posts where he has "right" was pretty much out of context of the discussion. It was just a reply to your post where he said "You're right. And I was right too a while back. Look and see."
Quote:
I am only saying the world is a dangerous place and we need to do what we can to understand where we stand in this world.
okay, but I'm not really debating that, rather the implication we all need to reach giants level of intellect.
Originally posted by rageous
rather the implication we all need to reach giants level of intellect.
He's not saying that, nor am I. Note my initial post in response.
You have a grudge. Fine.
Thanks anyway, fellowship. I guess it goes to show that you can't say anything nice about anyone on AO without a firestorm.
Originally posted by giant
Well, considering the Bush admin tried every justification in the book, I'm really curious what this mystery justification of your is. Was you favorite candy manufactured there or something and you couldn't get it because of the sanctions?
Justification is not the point. The point is that if someone believes it is better to first have Saddam Hussein removed from his position of leadership in Iraq than it is to deal with pakistan, that does not make them misinformed. They simply have a different opinion as to the order in which to approach all the situations that need resolution.
Originally posted by giant
[B]He's not saying that, nor am I. Note my initial post in response.[/b
Yes, it's exactly what he said:
Originally posted by giant
Thanks, but I don't deserve any credit
Originally posted by Fellowship
Sure you do, I wish more americans were informed to a higher level.
Fellows
Quote:
You have a grudge. Fine.
Why do you say that?
Quote:
Thanks anyway, fellowship. I guess it goes to show that you can't say anything nice about anyone on AO without a firestorm.
Sure he can. If my disagreement with you and him equates to a firestorm, then I guess you're right. But if my opposing viewpoint is respected in the least, then it is not. Notice I have been civil and mature with the both of you. What else should I do?
Originally posted by rageous
Justification is not the point ... They simply have a different opinion as to the order in which to approach all the situations that need resolution.
Justification is entirely the point. We aren't throwing darts at a map. The 'war on terror' and all foreign policy should be calculated in detail.
So where is the justification with neglecting al-qaeda and the situations in pakistan to go after Iraq? The situation in pakistan was and still is urgent. Iraq was not. Saddam was progressively losing his grip on his country. There were no weapons. The top section of his country was already out of his control, we had numerous groups we could have used to unseat him and the massacres that were going on in the 80s and after the first gulf war were not currently being executed.
Contrast that to pakistan, where al-qaeda was and is holed-up and nulcear tech was being spread globally. Afghanistan has had strong internal struggles, so much so that it now looks like Osama, Al-Zawahiri and Omar may have possibly returned.
Normally one would say hindsight is 20/20, but as I pointed out, at least a few of us recognized these things at the time.
Originally posted by giant
Justification is entirely the point. We aren't throwing darts at a map. The 'war on terror' and all foreign policy should be calculated in detail.
So where is the justification with neglecting al-qaeda and the situations in pakistan to go after Iraq. The situation in pakistan was and still is urgent. Iraq was not. Saddam was progressively losing his grip on his country. There were no weapons. The top section of his country was already out of his control, we had numerous groups we could have used to unseat him and the massacres that were going on in the 80s and after the first gulf war were not currently being executed.
Contrast that to pakistan, where al-qaeda was and is holed-up and nulcear tech was being spread globally. Afghanistan has had strong internal struggles, so much so that it now looks like Osama, Al-Zawahiri and Omar may have possibly returned.
Giant, please take a deep breath for a second.
Okay, now you asked for my personal justification, and I said my own personal justification was not the point.
My point all along has been that just because someone chooses not think that dealing with Pakistan before Iraq was the way to go does not make them misinformed. It is their opinion and they have every right to come to that opinion and not be considered of lower intelligence for doing so.
Originally posted by rageous
My point all along has been that just because someone chooses not think that dealing with Pakistan before Iraq was the way to go does not make them misinformed. It is their opinion and they have every right to come to that opinion and not be considered of lower intelligence for doing so.
No one is saying that other people can't have opinions, but opinions that do not deal with the facts are wrong.
For example: someone might hold the opnion that the best way to drive a car foward would be to first put it into neutral, turn off the engine and then press on the gas. They are entitled to hold that opinion, but that opinion is not correct no matter which way you slice it.
Just because someone has the right to formulate an opinion absolutely does not automatically make that opinion accurate.
Another example. Hoagland has the opinion that NASA is hiding evidence of alien civilizations on mars, and he has the right to that opinion, but his opinion is clearly not in line with the facts. (see link)
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...and/index.html
Originally posted by giant
Pakistan would not hand over Khan because the US doesn't want him to.
This is the leap in logic that simply eludes me, Giant.
Aside from the general "Bush is evil" doctrine your side holds to, I can't see how this thinking holds up to scrutiny.
The same crowd saying 'Bush should have acted on this' is the EXACT SAME crowd that's always crowing about why the US should not act unilaterally, and work through UN channels.
Furthermore, you seem to prefer to believe the fiction that Bush is involved in a "conspiracy" here rather than the logical assumption that Musharraf can't touch this guy without setting off a revolution in a country with 150 million people.
With China, India, the Koreas and Russia in the mix, I would say Bush is doing the only prudent thing he can. Which is to keep this thing from spiralling out of control.
Originally posted by giant
No one is saying that other people can't have opinions, but opinions that do not deal with the facts are wrong.
For example: someone might hold the opnion that the best way to drive a car foward would be to first put it into neutral, turn off the engine and then press on the gas. They are entitled to hold that opinion, but that opinion is not correct no matter which way you slice it.
Just because someone has the right to formulate an opinion absolutely does not automatically make that opinion accurate.
Another example. Hoagland has the opinion that NASA is hiding evidence of alien civilizations on mars, and he has the right to that opinion, but his opinion is clearly not in line with the facts. (see link)
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...and/index.html
And I never claimed a different opinion was automatically correct or of equal value to others. But you must also recognize the fact that despite your obviously well researched opinion on many things political, you are not always going to be correct, or the most accurate interpreter of every situation.
When people are presented with several issues that need dealing with, and decide on different ways of dealing with them, that does not make one person more right than the other. There is more than one road to any given destination.
Let me make it a little clearer:
Originally posted by rageous
The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
Yes it does.
If you think that statement is correct and justified, then I'll just agree to leave it at that.
Originally posted by rageous
Yes, it's exactly what he said:
Fellows said giant was more informed, not more intelligent. There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom and all that. Ignorance and stupidity, genius and learned....etc.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Fellows said giant was more informed, not more intelligent. There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom and all that. Ignorance and stupidity, genius and learned....etc.
Yes. I know. Perhaps I have muddled it a bit.
Originally posted by rageous
Justification is not the point. The point is that if someone believes it is better to first have Saddam Hussein removed from his position of leadership in Iraq than it is to deal with pakistan, that does not make them misinformed. They simply have a different opinion as to the order in which to approach all the situations that need resolution.
Sorry but justifacation is everything. The president had to lie to get the ball rolling on this. That makes it wrong no matter what the outcome.
Originally posted by rageous
But you must also recognize the fact that despite your obviously well researched opinion on many things political, you are not always going to be correct, or the most accurate interpreter of every situation.
Of course.
Originally posted by giant
..All it's about is digesting public information from varied sources, forming opinions after learning the facts and then always trying to prove your own beliefs wrong to see if they hold water.
That's the great thing about internet, usenet and listserv discussions and blogs. You can get other, more dogmatic people to do that last part for you.