Re: Cheney on FAUX


"Eagle" <eaglenewsgroup@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140709881.709481.238810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

But you wouldn't call "polarization" *wrong* -- that would be throwing
around a label, no? You say it leads to polarization but you make no
judgment about that?

No, I'd call it unfortunate and limiting. As long as any issue of any
complexity ends up with essentially two "sides" with proponents of each
debating over a single wall, I feel a good solution can't be reached. I
really do believe that "right" and "wrong" are almost always harmful.


And I'm not referring to morals, either. By labeling things
right and wrong we can tend to over-simplify and generalize what is often
a
complex issue full of gray areas. I've always believed that every issue
should be case by case.

If an issue is not evaluated on a case by case basis according to a
given set of principles which are clearly delineated as right and
wrong, then one is left with *whim* as being the standard and guide.

I think this point highlights our greatest difference in opinion. It seems
that you're using "whim" to mean lack of moral or ethical principle. If I'm
correct, then you believe that one who has principles must have a socially
accepted moral gauge. I disagree with this to a point. I do agree that
each society is continually drawing a "moral" line in the sand on any given
issue and that line helps to delineate right and wrong. The idealist in me
wishes that line could be drawn with a thicker marker and allow for more
wiggle room.

Yes, issues should be evaluated on a case by case basis, and many
issues are not black and white and are full of gray areas. I fully
agree. I believe my difference with you is that I hold that principles
are right and wrong, but *applying* those principles is often fraught
with difficulty and complexity. You seem to suggest that your position
is that labeling principles themselves as right or wrong is the
problem. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about this.

No, you're not mistaken. We obviously have a different philosophical view.
Now that we know this, we can understand each other better. Thanks.


Wow. I'm not sure you're actually talking to me. It seems you've
grouped
me in with a league of people who obviously enrage you.

I'm not enraged by people who disagree with me. It's the incredible
nastiness and the baseless accusations that often accompany those
disagreements that annoy me. You, however, have not been nasty, even
though you seem to disagree with me. If my previous post was tinged
with a bit of sarcasm, I apologize. I have a tendency to get that way
sometimes, and I really do want to keep things on a friendlier basis.

No biggy, I like passion. These are large issues full of nuance and shades.
I feel if more people (Americans in particular) could learn to debate
honestly, openly, and respectfully we'd get a lot more progress. And, of
course, the government should not be able to control the flow of facts and
information that would help us in these debates.

Actually, I'm really not sure yet
how I feel about that. It seems whichever extreme we choose lots of
people
get the shaft. Whether it's Iraqi citizens or American (and a few
coalition) soldiers. This dilemna certainly highlights how poorly the
decision was reached to go into Iraq

Don't agree there.

It's my understanding that the Neo-Conservative movement had been working
out a way to get to Iraq for years. It's important that you understand the
basic sequence of events as I see them:
America spends shitloads of money and time working out ways to encourage its
markets all over the world. Sometimes we open trade agreements; sometimes
we impose sanctions; sometimes we set up dummy governments; and sometimes we
invade and occupy. Over the last 40 years, a small and powerful group of
Americans (some of whom are a part of the current administration) have been
going to places with resources we'd like access to and jimmy-ing around with
the government and infrastructure to gain access to those resources. John
Perkins book, _Confessions of an Economic Hit Man_ lays out how this is
done. First we loan the struglling government hundreds of millions of
dollars. Then, to help them pay back a small amount of that money (but
never enough to release them from their debt) we start buying up their
natural resource infrastructure (power, water, disposal, etc.). We then
sell them back their OWN resources at 400 - 500% the original cost. This
causes the government to have to go into further debt. Meanwhile, the local
workers can't keep up with the new demands so we bring in American and
global contractors to do the job for them. After a while, a larger
percentage of the local population is out of work and destitute while the
resources they need to survive have become to expensive to obtain. Finally,
as all of these variables hit a boiling point a revolt is begun and we can
set up a dummy government (this is exactly how Hussein originally found
power in Iraq). This is when our responsibility to Iraqis began. The
American administration sat on its duff while Hussein reked havoc and simply
waited until he overstepped his own bounds. It was only when he invaded
Kuwait that the US intervened militarily, and as we already covered, Bush
the first knew better than to try to invade and occupy Iraq.

We are culpable in the Iraqis' plight. We are a large part of the reason
they lived under a tyrranical reign. OK, so why not go to war and fix it,
right? Maybe that's a great idea - but why didn't Bush do that? Instead he
drummed up the lame excuse of WMDs and waited (yes, waited; Wolfowitz had
been trying for years to invade Iraq) for 9/11 so he could get the most
support from the country. In other words, what could have been a great
opportunity to "mea culpa", get the world on our side, and overturn a
tyrranical dictatorship became a morass of distrust and dishonesty that
leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouths.

And what do you think was the reason far fewer soldiers were used? Do
you think it is even remotely possible that there was a real fear that
Saddam would use his WMD if attacked, and Rumsfeld and the
administration wanted to try to keep as few American soldiers exposed
to that risk as possible (see the Downing Street Memo)?

I suppose it's remotely possible. But there is absolutely no evidence of
this. Meanwhile there's tons of evidence that the opposite is true. My ire
with the current administration stems from the fact that they work very hard
to turn facts to their own devices (the ultimate beginning of this thread)
and then rely on marketing and PR experts to send those "facts" to the
people in a way that will guarantee them success. It's really sickening to
me.

You make no judgment about France and Germany not joining the
coalition, and then suggest that Bush could have gotten "good advice"
from them. It seems, contrary to your assertion, that you *are* making
a judgment about France and Germany -- that they had "good advice" to
offer, but that Bush ignored it and (you strongly imply) chose a "bad"
course of action instead. How is that not a judgment? No, you don't
use the actual words "right" and "wrong" but those concepts are
implicit in what you say about this issue.

I suppose you're right. I stand by my judgment, then.

As an American I can't
help feeling guilty by association in regards to Iraqis. After all it
was
the US who set up Hussein in the first place to make sure the Iraqi oil
market would benefit our nation.

For someone who talks about gray areas and complexities regarding
issues, the above statement is pretty simplistic and a-contextual.

I hope this post shows more of the complexities, then.

If you see no difference between the government of the United States
(or the Bush Administration) and Saddam's regime, or if you think it
"ridiculous" to see all the Iraqis who bravely ignored the threat of
violence and were thrilled to be given the chance to vote in a true
democratic election (a situation that existed thanks to the United
States and other coalition members) then you don't really have a
sincere regard for the complexity of issues.

I see how it seems that way. I guess I get a little worked up because we
seem so sure that free-market economies and democracies are the best way.
It just seems so, well, arrogant. I suppose it's too late, as far as Iraq
is concerned, to say, "we're the cause of this, how dare we". But maybe by
shedding light on how we do business globally and getting a little angry
about it, we can keep our government from doing it again (Venezuela, Bosnia,
South Korea, Haiti, Honduras, etc.).

Jason T.


.