Going to War

[Swordsman]

No. I don't call the increasingly hostile circles we've been going in "progress". If I want to run laps, I'll go to track practice.

[135711]

sorry swordsman, i feel responsible that you're backed into a corner on this issue, ever since I said you can't analyze, so we changed topics, in retrospect, i can see that it's simply a differing viewpoint.

I'll shorten my previous lengthly post: the argument is based on perceptions, and an ultimate perception would be a truth. Something so true that we can all agree upon as being true even if we don't subscribe to it ourselves. If this is possible, to develop, then we'll be on the right track in terms of building a society based on a pursuit of happyness that does not detract from another person's happyness.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Swordsman
No. I don't call the increasingly hostile circles we've been going in "progress". If I want to run laps, I'll go to track practice.

Exactly! its NOT progress. the reason its not is that you make an argument, I disagree with specific points in specific manners and create a counter argument, you restate your argument. to make progress, you will actually need to say WHY you disagree with what I'm saying and respond to the criticisms of your arguments with new elaboration.

-m

[Darion McNair]

*sigh* I'm inclined to agree with Swordsman. Political discussions like this are a no-win situation to begin with. You, Mike, have your own points of view and Swordsman and I have our own as well. It is obvious that no one is going to do any mind changing anytime soon. I was a little bothered by the way you decided to respond. I tried to stay calm whereas you slowly resort to insisting and ranting till I conceed. But I have no hard feelings against you and by now just wish to end this conversation and be done with it.

Heh....and to think I'm majoring in political science next year.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally posted by Swordsman
Mike: While I enjoy discussion and debate to a considerable degree, your tone has grown frustrated and borderline hostile. I disagree with you and think your logic is faulty. Do I not have that right? I'm not going to bother to respond to each of your preceding posts. Naturally you'll disagree with whatever I say, and proceed to tell me I'm still "blindly accepting propaganda" from the administration. You are also at this point saying to yourself (or whoever happens to be in the room), "He's a war-monger like the rest of them - Air Force kid, growing up to go to the Academy, standard teenage male, just wants a fight. Conservative military family, he's been trained from an early age to just believe whatever the government says". Right there, you rob me of any argument I may try to pose. By the way - I specified Kennedy because Nixon did not immediately spring to mind. I will, however, agree with you on Nixon.

But I digress. I have attempted repeatedly to "agree to disagree", and you will not even let that be. I am leaving in a few months, and will not have time for the boards anymore - something I thought I would miss. The way things are going right now, though, perhaps not. I'm cutting out for right now until [certain] people remember such things as diplomacy and temperment.

First of all, sorry for quoting a huge chunk rather than small parts and then answering to each of them in turn - when I try to quote small parts the posting goes wrong.

Swordsman, I agree that Epeemike is getting a bit strident, but I beieve that this is at least partly due to the fact that you have not explicitly stated that you see that there is a difference between the two topics of:
1. Whether SH has WoMD
2. Who shall bear the burden of proof concerning the existence of such WoMD.

The issues are related, but not at all identical. If Epeemike does not see proof that you discern between the two, it would be surprising if frustration would not ensue.

You state that you think that his logic is faulty. Considering that you brought up the topic of logic, do tell us: has analytical logic and/or philosophy so far been a part of your curriculum? I studied it when I was 14, 2 years before entering University, but since I do not know what kind of curriculum you have I can not know where you are coming from.

You also state that you will not answer every post of his. Considering that you have posted extensively in this thread, you must have had *some* motive for doing so. Is it that you want to get people, previously not on your side, to agree with you? Is it that you want to state your case so that those already leaning towards your side to be reinforced? Is it some comepletely different reason? In the following paragraphs I will assume that the 1st alternative is correct. If not, my points below become moot.

When trying to persuade people, start out by trying to find out what motivates them, what the consider good goals, and what they consider correct logic (and some more, but let´s limit it there). This is even more important when trying to persuade someone who is different from you, as Epeemike is. When writing an argument, ask yourself: would this argument, if stated by George W. Bush, help carry the state of Mass. in the next presidential election? If it were stated by Al Gore, would it help him carry Utah? If you believe that your argument passes either of those stringent tests, it is probably well-designed in the respect that it persuades previous sceptics.

Do you have extensive experience of living in an environment where your opinions, and/or those of your immediate family, were/are greatly different from those of almost all around you? (It sure hones your reasoning skills, if you have any talent) If so, what has worked in persuading people? Imagine that you, by some unforeseen twist of fate, would end up in, say, a liberal-arts college in San Fransisco (and no ROTC for you to buddy with), and were to stay there for an extended period of time. What would you do to persuade people?

Another thing is that (as far as I can see) they two of you discussing in two different modes. Since the old Romans, rethoric has differentiated between three types of persuasive speech:
1. The political speech
2. The judicial speech
3. The festive speech (with which we do not have to bother ourselves further here)

It appears to me that you are using the political mode, while Epeemike is using the judicial mode. This mixup is about as fruitful as a fencing bout in which one is fencing epee and the other is fencing foil - fun in a train-wreck way, but no way to find out who is better. The difference can be summarized thusly: In the political speech, the two speakers have symmetrical roles. It is enough to persuade more people than the opposition, and truth, while being useful, is not a necessity for winning. However, in the judicial speech, the two speakers have distinct - not symmetrical roles. The DA must abide by truth, and must persuade all (or in some cases an absolute majority) listeners who are supposed to be sceptical from the beginning. The lawyer, OTOH, is free to hide as much of the truth as he sees fit (the accused to free to lie to his heart´s content, should he belive that it is good for him), he need only sow reasonable doubt in the minds of - not convince - in a minority of the listeners. These are two quite different situations, and a mix-up will only cause confusion.

Swordsman, imagine a scaled-down version of all this in a judicial setting. A DA is accusing the defendant of possession of illegal weapons, and states that the defendant has not openly destroyed all the weapons that the DA belives him to have, so he must have a stash somewhere. Would that, in and of itself, persuade a jury where you live? If you answer yes, I either wonder about your legal knowledge, or I do not want to come anywhere near your home county, if an average jury with such views could be selected from the population.

I was going to post a guess on what I thought your background was, based on your posts. Turned out that I was right on many points. ;-) Anyway, as a parlor game: what do you think *my* background is, apart from what can be directly deduced from my posts? Let´s see how predictable I am!

You write that you have offered to agree to disagree with Epeemike, but that he has not taken that offer. My personal guess is that he wants something else: An admission that you are wrong and he right, or failing that, an admission that you have so widely disparate goals and/or modes of thinking so that they are irreconcilable.

Before you leave - do a netsearch on Godwin´s law. I was quite taken aback with you unfamiliarity therewith.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Gav]

Very Interesting. I've never come across this definition before but I can see how useful it is.

[civiltech]

I am not sure whether any of the American media channels are doing this but CBC is!

While listening to Peter Mansbridge last night, he often went back to live cameras in Iraq, strategically placed, pointing at several "areas" of Baghdad. These cameras looked to be unmanned, but set in place, with night vision technology as well.

Now, I am all for open press, and the truthful reporting of the facts. (Though it rarely happens.) However, something doesn't feel right about having cameras set up around a war zone...it's to much like a reality show, except people die. Our government has raised concerns over the amount of media that will be broadcast from the war front.

Apparantly some schools are preparing to deal with children who end up sitting in front of the latest war on TV. That's a whole different issue though.

I cannot really comment whether this is right or wrong. However, the thought of me sitting back, having a glass of wine in my living room, and watching a war live on TV somehow seems....sick.

[epeemike81]

so, I was watching coverage this morning, and a Pentagon spokesman said that reports of scud attacks on Kuwait could not possibly be true since Iraq has no scuds. (source: CNN).

What changed? all of a sudden, we are sure he ISN'T hiding weapons???

the implication here is that we were throwing around all sorts of rhetoric and calling him a lier when we KNEW that he wasn't hiding weapons! this is another clear example of why the burden of proof SHOULD have been on the inspectors.

Swordsman, imagine a scaled-down version of all this in a judicial setting. A DA is accusing the defendant of possession of illegal weapons, and states that the defendant has not openly destroyed all the weapons that the DA belives him to have, so he must have a stash somewhere. Would that, in and of itself, persuade a jury where you live? If you answer yes, I either wonder about your legal knowledge, or I do not want to come anywhere near your home county, if an average jury with such views could be selected from the population.

Exactly, but not exactly.

that is a VERY good analogy, which shows exactly the faulty logical argument that I am talking about. it is an artificially created catch 22. however, I want to make one thing clear, which sometimes ends up being a point of confusion: I am NOT suggesting that he is innocent until proven guilty, or that the burden of proof must be as high as in a courtroom. the international world is NOT a courtroom. however, the above example shows how flawed the argument itself is. not only isn't it airtight enough for a courtroom conviction, its not even strong enough to convince public opinion, which I think people will see if they take this smaller scale example.

You write that you have offered to agree to disagree with Epeemike, but that he has not taken that offer. My personal guess is that he wants something else: An admission that you are wrong and he right, or failing that, an admission that you have so widely disparate goals and/or modes of thinking so that they are irreconcilable.

not really. agree to disagree and admission of widely disparate goals and thinking is about the same thing. Really, my responses have nothing to do with convincing swordsman. rarely, if ever, is ANYBODY persuaded by a reply to something they wrote on this board. those who post are already so set in their opinions that they will not be swayed. I post to try and present the logical arguments to the readers who AREN'T posting. I see this forum as similar to a debate: the debaters aren't likely to sway each other, just the audience. however, I do think that debates can progress. the one thing that is clear from watching/listening to the BBC is that the level of this debate on BOTH sides has progressed MUCH farther in other countries. this is, IMO, true of most issues. Americans tend to be more easily swayed by rhetoric and feeling (as opposed to statistics, and facts) and do not look as well at the underlying facts. this blindness occurs on both sides of the aisle, and I'm sure I have done it too, though I endeavor not to. It is my goal, through what little I can do, to try and MAKE Americans think about the issues more deeply. to this end, it would be more helpful to have a better debator on the other side (note: I'm not saying swordsman lacks the tools to be this debator, just that he needs to expand his thought process a little, and be a little more open to others arguments. you can't persuade somebody that an argument is wrong without first understanding it to its fullest).

-m

[Philistine]

Originally posted by epeemike81
so, I was watching coverage this morning, and a Pentagon spokesman said that reports of scud attacks on Kuwait could not possibly be true since Iraq has no scuds. (source: CNN).

What changed? all of a sudden, we are sure he ISN'T hiding weapons???

the implication here is that we were throwing around all sorts of rhetoric and calling him a lier when we KNEW that he wasn't hiding weapons! this is another clear example of why the burden of proof SHOULD have been on the inspectors.
Exactly, but not exactly.
{snip}

Just a note, but I think you are confusing who made what statement.

In this CNN Article, it notes that it is the Iraqi information minister saying Iraq didn't have Scud's, not US officials.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
Swordsman, imagine a scaled-down version of all this in a judicial setting. A DA is accusing the defendant of possession of illegal weapons, and states that the defendant has not openly destroyed all the weapons that the DA belives him to have, so he must have a stash somewhere. Would that, in and of itself, persuade a jury where you live? If you answer yes, I either wonder about your legal knowledge, or I do not want to come anywhere near your home county, if an average jury with such views could be selected from the population.

It's worse than that, Peter. In most jurisdictions a grand jury hears only the evidence the prosecutor wants it to hear. It's his show, and the defendant has very limited rights. The DA can pretty much make it do anything he wants. If he wants an indictment returned, he will almost always get it.

However, the scenario you've laid out is flawed. It implies that the DA merely claims to have evidence which he will share with no one. If in fact he shared it with the judge, and some of it with the jury, and everyone who had it was then sequestered to keep them from leaking it, you would have a closer analogy. What most of those opposed to the war seem to be demanding is not that the DA share his evidence with the judge and jury, but rather with the press and the public at large....

[thebigriddle]

I hope you guys are ready for a perpetual police state. They doing really good job of conditioning everyone for it with the continual coverage of the war. This could be were this continual going on and on. If you stress people and make them afraid they become like a rat that has been shocked a little too much. Of course being fencers you are use to knowing the difference between reality and the BS. Remember Freedom is slavery.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Philistine
Just a note, but I think you are confusing who made what statement.

In this CNN Article, it notes that it is the Iraqi information minister saying Iraq didn't have Scud's, not US officials.

--Philistine

not unless CNN has started referring to the Iraqi information minister as a "pentagon source".

the Iraqi statement was excepted, but I was VERY surprised to see that "a pentagon source" had said that.....

-m

[epeemike81]

Swordsman: another reason not to trust this administration:
Rumsfeld said that our actions had "overwhelming international support". I'm used to spin, but I think it will be clear even to administration cheerleaders like yourself that this is an out and out lie.

-m

[civiltech]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Swordsman: another reason not to trust this administration:
Rumsfeld said that our actions had "overwhelming international support". I'm used to spin, but I think it will be clear even to administration cheerleaders like yourself that this is an out and out lie.

-m

I believe even CNN (devout prowar, and "cash in on the war" media) noted that even though 40 some countries have officially backed the US, the bulk of them are heavily dependent on US aid. ie.-Jordan is recieving close to $1B, Egypt is getting around $3B, and Pakistan is in there too. It doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together.

[epeemike81]

Exactly. Not to mention, of the "large coalition" we have, we have only 2 of the G8 countries and maybe 4 or 5 (of 15) of the security council?

This is hardly overwhelming international support.

-m

[civiltech]

I have about had it with peace protesting for one main reason.

Flag Burning. I was going to go down to Toronto last week to take part in a "peaceful" protest outside the American consulate stating our disappointment with the War in Iraq. When you see a bunch of idiot's burning the American flag, I want nothing to do with that. It's funny how some of these protests bring out the slugs of society. The violence, and vandalism is also starting to get me angry.

I'm tired of hearing "it's only a few radicals who spoil it for everyone else." Are these same people manageing to make it to every single protest in the world? So, a bunch of **** heads decide to throw some rocks at police, burn a flag, and destroy a parked car in the name of peace....then when the cops try to break it up, these hoolagins cry out police brutality, and my freedom of expression is being suppressed.

If I were an established government...I wouldn't give a protest like that the time of day. As a citizen, I cannot support those actions in the name of peace. And in turn, the whole idea of protesting, and lobbying is useless as it's associated with fringe groups, radicals, vandals, and criminal activities.

There cannot be any more of a slap in the face to a neighbour than to burn a symbol of their country. I think Georg W is head strong, and pretty slow....but I also know that maybe he would pay attention if we expressed ourselves (collectively) more proactively....and not burning his, and his countrymen's proud symbol.

p.s.-Why are greenpeace, coalition for same sex marriages, etc. at a peace protest for Iraq? I ask this quite seriously. Someone please tell me.

[shamshir]

everyone wants to further their agenda. it always happens when there is a major issue that some people feel strongly about. The types of people at that rally in Toronto were staggering in terms of variety. The common element was opposition to the war. It's not hard to see why some Catholic schoolteachers' union and some LGBT groups, for example, shared the same opinion on this issue, however ironic it is.

I was at that protest and I must've missed the flag-burning. That is in very poor taste, but whoever did that was definitely in the minority. I really enjoy, however, how the American media is severely playing up all instances like this: booing at hockey games, flag-burning, Herb Dhaliwal's comments, and so forth. It's like childish spite, at an international level.

[pkt]

All,

I have a Power Point presentation from the University of Milan titled "Why go to war"

those who want it can send me a PM.

PK

[pkt]

Originally posted by shamshir
everyone wants to further their agenda. I

Not trying to be critical or malicious:
shouldn't it be "everyone"... "his agenda"?

civiltech,

it is 'their' not 'there'...

Maybe you're like me an ESL-person.


PK

[pkt]

Here's a good anti-war site

http://idleworm.wolffelaar.nl/nws/2002/11/swf/iraq2.swf

PK