More about Bushes lies on Iraq - the truth is anti war.

[peaccenicked]

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20020925/index.php

[j]

I was listening to NPR the other day and they did a piece on what the motives are for many in washington regarding the middle east. The goal, these "hawks" have is to democratize the middle east. It starts with Iraq and spreads accross the region. They had the former director of the CIA (I forget his name) talking about it. How this plan has been lingering around for 10 years or so. He claimed that we did it with Eastern Europe and much of Asia and so on. He claimed that we should be democratizing the middle east because everyone deserves to be free.

This made me so angry. Sure I believe in democracy. But what I view this as is cultural imperialism. We are taking our norms and mores and making other people conform to them. What if they don't want to? And even if they want to--why the hell is it our business?

My conclusion was that these "hawks" (coined by the NPR commentator) are trying to democratize in order to secure the oil reserves in the region. If we can make everyone else a democracy (read capitalism) in our fashion then everyone will be our friends. In turn we get all we want--we become the de facto rulers of the world. Hey, isn't that what the Bushes want anyway??

j

[peaccenicked]

In short. Yes.

[vox]

"But what I view this as is cultural imperialism. We are taking our norms and mores and making other people conform to them. What if they don't want to? And even if they want to--why the hell is it our business?"

I think that J has raised a very important issue here, one the Left doesn't seem to like talking about too much. What is the proper response to oppressive regimes?

While I understand the importance of cultural imperialism, I can't side with the pomo-influenced gang who seems to think that relativism is an excuse to do nothing. To avoid the hot button issue of Iraq for the moment, I'd hope that everyone on this board, Left and right, condemns the military junta in Myanmar (Burma). What should the response be?

First of all, many countries are already signatories of the UN charter, and that gives us a pretty good guide, I think, on what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable. This does not, of course, mean that military action is the appropriate response (though it may be in some cases), but resolutions condemning governments, sanctions, suspension of trade, etc., are all avenues that can be explored.

Not long ago there was a story in the news about a woman who was sentenced to be raped. I do not care, at that point, about being "sensitive" to another culture. I condemn it as being a human rights abuse and universally wrong.

One more thing, J. I agree entirely with your conclusion, especially the part about, for the ruling elite in the US, democracy equals capitalist exploitation. One must always be aware of just who is defining "democracy" that they want other people to live under.

vox

[vox]

Great piece there, peaccenicked. I especially liked this part:

"Now, much to President Bush's discomfort, Iraq has said the weapons inspectors can come back without conditions. This throws a monkey wrench into Bush's war plans. True, it might be just a trick by Saddam Hussein, but nothing will be lost or threatened by giving peace a chance. The truth is that the original inspectors oversaw the destruction of 90 percent to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons. It is also true that the United States kept raising the bar and had furthermore corrupted the inspection process by using it as a cover for spying."

This is an important point: what is to be lost by giving the weapons inspectors a chance? Nothing, unless your real motive is not the safety of the world, as Bush claims.

vox

[Stormin Norman]

God damn! Are you left-wingers incapable of taking information from a credible news source? I understand that this is an editorial from some commie pinko scumbag, but certainly you can see my point. I don't know the last time I clicked on one of your links and did not see a slanted, un-American, incredible document, which reeks of the typical predictable mantra given by all the left wingers. I get the feeling that when searching for ammunition to support your arguments you skip over scores of information which are produced by credible news agencies in order to get to the bottom of the barrel where you will find views like Charlie Reese’s. What is wrong with you people?

[ArgueEverything]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 11:15 am on Sep. 27, 2002
God damn! Are you left-wingers incapable of taking information from a credible news source? I understand that this is an editorial from some commie pinko scumbag, but certainly you can see my point. I don't know the last time I clicked on one of your links and did not see a slanted, un-American, incredible document, which reeks of the typical predictable mantra given by all the left wingers. I get the feeling that when searching for ammunition to support your arguments you skip over scores of information which are produced by credible news agencies in order to get to the bottom of the barrel where you will find views like Charlie Reese’s. What is wrong with you people?

Remember my post on rightwing governments and high suicide rates? That was from a credible news source (you can't get much more credible than the BBC), and you still weren't impressed. I think you just prefer attacking the ideals of the people who you *assume* write these articles, rather than attacking the arguments themselves.

[Stormin Norman]

Give me an article worth refuting. I can't get past the first line of most of them before puking on the floor. Your right, it was from the BBC. Congratulations! I do think the BBC has a liberal slant, although it does present a lot of objective journalism. It remains a credible source. My criticism was a generalization. If we did the math, I believe your credible source was in the minority among those presented by the left on this board.

[Guest]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 11:51 am on Sep. 27, 2002
Give me an article worth refuting. I can't get past the first line of most of them before puking on the floor. Your right, it was from the BBC. Congratulations! I do think the BBC has a liberal slant, although it does present a lot of objective journalism. It remains a credible source. My criticism was a generalization. If we did the math, I believe your credible source was in the minority among those presented by the left on this board.

You seem to have missed my point: that whether or not an article comes from a credible source or not, you will cast it aside if it doesn't fit in with your preconceived worldview. You discarded the work of the scientists in the suicide study, calling them biased, even though the centre they work for is politically neutral.

I create theories to fit my facts. You seem to create 'facts' to fit your theories.

[Stormin Norman]

No, I cast it aside as being inconsequential. I merely stated that many news agencies use such biased studies to support an agenda. Would you not agree? Both sides are guilty of this. I simply wish people would quit referring such 'studies' as scientific. I am tired of hearing news reports that state, 'the experts say', without showing me how it is these experts obtained their results. Bullshit reigns, when people become too lazy to think for themselves. The days of yellow journalism are back.

Besides, I believe CI produced another such study that contradicted the BBC story that you posted. Does this not show that concrete results remain elusive? A fundamental law has not been developed that suggests that right wing governments produce more of a suicidal population than that of totalitarian regimes. Correct me if I am wrong.

[ArgueEverything]

"No, I cast it aside as being inconsequential. I merely stated that many news agencies use such biased studies to support an agenda. "

So you DID say the study was biased. You again state it here. Yet I've said it over and over again: the centres that conducted the studies (remember, there were TWO separate studies, one in the UK, the other in Australia, which both produced similar results) were both politically neutral. The study was "published in the Journal of Epidemiolgy and Community Health (JECH) -- a politically neutral research organ that is part of the British Medical Association (BMA) publishing stable." (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Health/story_39382.asp).

"Would you not agree? Both sides are guilty of this."

I do agree, but that doesn't seem relevant to the suicide study, because it was not a biased study.

The popular perception of the media as a bulwark of liberalism, which you seem to adhere to, is a myth. At least one study I have seen, which vox recently posted a link to(http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html), confirms this. If you can present a study, rather than simple anecdotal 'evidence', that the media has a liberal bias, then I'd be happy to look at it.

"I simply wish people would quit referring such 'studies' as scientific. I am tired of hearing news reports that state, 'the experts say', without showing me how it is these experts obtained their results. Bullshit reigns, when people become too lazy to think for themselves. The days of yellow journalism are back."

I understand that often studies like the one i presented do have a political agenda. However, normally such studies are produced by Left/Right wing think tanks; the suicide study was done by Medical Associations, which are politically neutral.

The actual study is found here: http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/56/10/766

It mentions all the particulars. It turns out it WAS tested with a regressive model

(Edited by ArgueEverything at 1:54 pm on Sep. 27, 2002)

[vox]

As argueeverything pointed out, SN simply whined "this isn't credible" without actually saying why it wasn't credible. It's always funny to me that right-wingers throw hissy fits like this but seem completely unable to answer anything that the piece says. I mean, if a piece is full of lies, wouldn't it be awfully easy for right-wingers to point them out? Sure it would be.

But SN doesn't even try to do that. Instead, he just says it's "predictable" and "un-American," which sounds more like typical right-wing AM talk radio than any actual argument, doesn't it? I find the "un-American" charge particulary funny, for it assumes that a unilateral policy of pre-emptive attack is somehow a uniquely "American" ideal, though, officially anyway, that's not been the policy of the US.

But what does one expect from the "shoot first and ask questions later" school of right-wing diplomacy? Nothing rational, that's for sure.

SN whines about credibility but once again shows that he has none left at all.

vox

[canikickit]

"un-American"?
What the hell is that supposed to mean, anyway?
Oh my god! Individual thought! God forbid. What the hell is un-American, I never heard anybody being criticised for being un-Irish or un-Canadian. I think it's just another one of these right winger attempts to distract attention from the true heart of the matter. The same way they shout "anti-semitism" at any negative talk of Israel.

[Pinko]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 11:51 am on Sep. 27, 2002
Give me an article worth refuting. I can't get past the first line of most of them before puking on the floor. Your right, it was from the BBC. Congratulations! I do think the BBC has a liberal slant, although it does present a lot of objective journalism. It remains a credible source. My criticism was a generalization. If we did the math, I believe your credible source was in the minority among those presented by the left on this board.


Hahahahahaaaaaa..... The BBC? Liberal slant? Heheheheeee.
The BBC is biased toward the current government as they appoint its head and provide its money. At the moment it is leaning towards (not by a huge ammount) the policies of warmonger Blair.

Get your facts right before opening that offensive hole of yours SN.

Teehee, liberal slant....