| Is the war in Iraq really necessary? | |
|
Lord Exar Kun - Student  |
Hey, with a war in Iraq comming up, I just wondered what you guys have got to say about Bush and his war-politics. I personally think Bush is goin way too far with his war-on-terrorism. _______________ -Retired april the 19th 2004 |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
Okay, Okay, Okay....
I think that I made the mistake of intertwining random jests into the serious stuff that I was writing. I DO NOT really intend to run for President or anything. I just wanted to humorously know if anyone thought I was good at this ate all. As for the UN thing, I just briefly argued that the institution is a good thing, just that some (not all) the members have a few flaws. Those resolutions involving those members are doomed to fail. The UN did do some good resolutions between other countries that don't have such flaws. So, one could say they are infeective in some areas, effective in others. That may or may not make the UN ineffective as a whole, I'm just pointing out that there have been many areas wher the UN succeds. YOu just never hear about successes, failures make for better stories. As for the happy-go-lucky UN ROCKS!!! Thing at the end, that was another jest. I just didn't want the UN to know I'm making fun of them. BY THE WAY, UN, YOU ROCK!!!! (See, they'll be distracted by the big letters. A lot like the French that way. And cats. Easily distracted.) I'm actually going to make some form of contribution to the discussion sometime. Just that I finished a round of back-to-back Holocaust Studies and Weapons of Mass Destruction studies. That'll make anyone think a WHOLE lot differnetly about the world. So I need to jest a bit. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Aeth S'kray - Retired 
|
"Children died making his shoes?! Do you think any children died making my shoes?
I wouldn’t want any dead children germs on them. (J/K don’t crucify me.) " 
*speechless* *thinks* *crucifys io*  _______________ Aeth S'kray *June 2002 +September 2003 This comment was edited by Aeth S'kray on Jan 23 2003 02:31pm. |
|
DJ Sith - Jedi Council 
|
My shoes are USA made, so they followed all the various and sundry labor laws in creating them. Of course that *does* jack up the price.  _______________ My car is made of Nerf. |
|
ioshee - Student 
|
Children died making his shoes?! Do you think any children died making my shoes?
I wouldn’t want any dead children germs on them. (J/K don’t crucify me.) _______________ One of the Belouve boys |
|
Sniya - Student 
|
id be willing to spend billions on peace rather than millions on war if that were the case.War is a choice but it is the last choice,and some politicians should remeber that _______________ The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. Bertrand Russell http://www.thejediacademy.net/forums_detail_page.php?f_id=970 |
|
Aeth S'kray - Retired
|
One beautiful quote I have to add:
"Better spend millions on peace than billions on war" Guys, let's solve the existing problems first, before we create new ones. But Mr. Bush has his colour-TV and his golden toilet, so what does he care about the children that died working on his shoes? _______________ Aeth S'kray *June 2002 +September 2003 This comment was edited by Aeth S'kray on Jan 23 2003 12:41pm. |
|
Sniya - Student
|
To quote principal skinner from the simpsons"Do you want to be like the real UN or just bicker and never acomplish anything"LOL
As to ulic for president he is may be good but what i want out of a president is a dreamer and idealist.Aim for the stars and you will fly through the sky. ANd here in Northern Ireland you just need to be terrible for the job of a politician and your a shoe in. Oh BTW there is this funny picture of bush at at some army base and he was given bonoculars to look out at summit he didn't take off the covers  oh BTW this info is quite useless _______________ The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. Bertrand Russell http://www.thejediacademy.net/forums_detail_page.php?f_id=970 |
|
Kalheka - Student 
|
Many very good points, Khalaas about Germany not being the same as Iraq, I agree there were major differences. However I didn't really say that they were the same. Saddam may not have the power to field an army like that of the Germans, but he does have the power to fuel terrorists. He also has the power to launch said crappy scud missles at whoever he can aim them at.
Saddam poses the same kind of danger that Hitler did when Germany was coming together. It may not be the military machine that Hitler was able to field, but it is still a grave danger none the less. And Ulic, I guess you just really wanted to see how I would respond to that, so I will give you what I have. You say the UN isn't ineffective because they have many great resolutions out there, that the problem is the members. Since member nations are unwilling to follow through, that makes the body of the UN, INEFFECTIVE! All the UN does is talk. If the UN was effective, the situation in Iraq wouldn't be going on. No more proof than that needs be said. _______________ Death is only the beginning. |
|
Bubu - Hubbub 
|
khalaas don't take me too seriously 
i don't want to give my opinions on this matter because i feel they will not contribute much to this discussion. i like it as it is and i don't have enough knowledge on the subject in order to postulate a good arguement. i prefer to leave it as it is and just read and absorb.
carry on. _______________ make install -not war This comment was edited by Bubu on Jan 23 2003 05:53am. |
|
Jedi Al Khalaas - Student 
|
As for Ulic for President (I will answer his post later...Answering with insults is far quicker than a comprehensive response, and I do not have the advantage of prepared political science essays or colleagues studying politics!)
As for Ulic for President, Bubu , lets hear your opinion on things , to follow , apparently blindly , is not something to be encouraged! and I would vote for Ulic over President Bush , he is the worst and easily led president during my lifetime , bring back ANY of the others , yes even Clinton or Bush Senior |
|
Jedi Al Khalaas - Student 
|
To answer Kalheka's point comparing Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler to Present day Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
They are not the same. Adolph and Saddam ARE both bad men. However, as nations, Germany just before the second world war was a major power smarting from a defeat in the 1st world war, 30 years earlier , a new generation of Germans had grown who were not aware of the reality of the brutal 1st world war. In Iraq the people can still remember 10 years ago and can still remember iran iraq , and so are not keen on war. Nazi Germany had the means ie military and financial means to fight and win a war. Iraq has been crippled over the last 10 years and clunky old tanks and a few scud missiles cannot compare to the arsenal it would face. Also the iraqi , soldiers we some time see on tv news look like conscripts and dont seem too keen to fight, they fight out of fear of saddam , not the pride of the nation ala nazi Germany. The people of Germany had (and still have) a strong national identity . They are all germans, and Hitler used this pride to fuel his ambitions The people of Iraq are majority Shia muslims (like Iran) and Saddams govt are Sunni Muslims. Equate this to a Catholic / protestant split. Saddam has systemaicaly been persecuting Shia and Kurds , his own people. I would argue that Iraq does not have all its people pulling in the direction needed for imperialistic ambitions. Anyway to get to the point... Although the leaders intentions might be the same (Adolph and Saddam) , the people would not give the same support to the leader AND Iraq does not have the means to match Germany in expanding its boundaries ( they couldnt even take Kuwait!) Saddams time is near end , he will not be as 'successful' Hitler was in his imperialistic push. (That was not a pro hitler statement) |
|
Bubu - Hubbub 
|
as i said before, Ulic for president!! _______________ make install -not war |
|
ioshee - Student 
|
Ulic are you kidding. I foresee you becoming the greatest Jedi of all the Jedi. Even Master Bush.
Seriously, I would vote for you. _______________ One of the Belouve boys |
|
Hector Thrawn - Ex-Student 
|
ah thank you ulic, brining up the age old "do the ends justify the means?" question. this is almost always a difficult question to answer with any specificity, especially when human lives are at stake. however i practice a philosiphy that helps me deal with killing at least a bit, although i will agree (b/c i know someone is going to say it) that this is probably no the best way of dealing with things here it is:
there are only two cases where killing is justified 1)when the "victim" is a killer of humans. because when one kills a human (imo) the cease being human all together and are on the same level as very rabid, dangerous animals. (killing them obviously would not count as killing a human since they forfited that status). 2)in a case of defense of one's self or others in a mortally dangerous situation. it is the thought that counts; if you are planning on killing someone for somthing less destructive than death you are only making things worse and like the person who kills a human you also cease to be human. the only real problem i have found with this (other than killing in general)is what do you do with people who order someone to be killed, but are incapable of killing by their own means? so far the best i can think of is prove the connection and cut their guns out from under them. if you have a better idea im interested. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
Hmmmm...
Well, thanks for apoligizing for the 'tits' comment. The thing that got me on that was the fact that that was your counter-argument, when I knew you could put out a good argument like what was shown below. So now I have a task to answer all of your questions (and you are lucky that I had a discussion with people over lunch over this same topic. Many of them felt I was better than the President at articulating things, and that I sould take some sort of political office. I think I know diddly, but if you think otherwise, let me know. Not to boost an ego or anything, but if you really feel that I should pursue something in that area, even though I think I'm no good at it, let me know.) Now, to the point at hand: (I apologize if all of this is not cited, I'm just taking things from my personal discussion/reading) <<<Why does the US government (UK just shadow US and dont count as having an opinion) seem to be the only governent actively pushing for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq?>>> Well, the issue with this is the fact that Iraq violated UN Resolutions. These were signed by a UN Security Council, of which France and Germany are members of. When Iraq breaks these resolutions, the members who signed need to hand out the appropriate response. However, France and Germany just don't want to do this. This has gone on for many years, where the resolution is broken, but others (US, UK, France, Germany) do not hold THEIR end and punish Iraq. So, Bush is a moral pragmatic. He wants to do what is "prudent" and what is "right". In his mind, handing out all the punishment that is accumulated in the violations is what seems right. And it makes some sense, to give Saddam all the punishment that he agreed to take, should he violate the agreement. Realistically, all the added up punishments call for a regime change. So why AREN'T France and Germany on board? No one really knows with France. Tony Blair described them as being like "cats, not very loyal and nowhere to be found when called." Germany, however, has another issue. In terms of "high politics" and "low politics", the US has the war "high" and the economy "mid" or "low". Germany, has the economy "high" and war "low". The economy of Germany is doing well, with the Euro supposedly rivaling the US Dollar. But many say it is still on shaky ground. If Germany were to enter into war, making war "high" and the economy "low", it could rapidly devalue the Euro, which would just suck (to keep the explanation short.) Also, gah! don't know exact name-- Schroeder? (just checked news, and YES! was correct!) Anyways, he also pledged in his campaigning to NOT back war with Iraq, and also to help out the economy. Going to war would really cause him to lose support, and that's no good either. However, one can surmise that France and Germany will fall in line behing us if we go to war. Bush knows this, and there are probably good reasons why they would simply "follow us but not support us." <<<IF they had killed him in the 1st GW , we would not be in this predicament.>>> Well, first off, we merely got the coalition to agree to fight alongside us, with the objective to liberate Kuwait. If we went after Saddam and forced a regime change, this would cause the UN to shove a bunch of resolutions up the US's whoo-hoo. So we don't go AFTER him, but just assasinate him, right? There are many theories that say that's what we wanted to do, right? Well, yes and no. We did want to take him out. The problem was Ford, the President. He passed an Executive Agreement in 1975 saying that the assasination of foreign leaders was not in accordance with US Policy. It would be difficult to overturn this, even today, as it would cause much controversy if the issue was brought to the Senate and/or Congress. So, if we assasinated him, we just violated our own policy, and we'd be screwed. So we just sat back, and passed resolutions and sanctions against him. So, yes, if we had acted, we would have not wound up in this situation, BUT we would have a whole host of more problems from it. <<<IF they has disengaged with Saddam properly after IRAN/IRAQ we wouldnt be in this predicament.>>> Well, we don't know that. Iraq took over Kuwait because it felt it was part of its original ownership (like the land disputes with Israel and Palestine). So it was this attitude that we really could not have changed. But there is ONE predicament that we could have avoided if we disengaged right after the Iran/Iraq: Sept. 11th. You see, Bin Laden really had a lot of issues with American involvement in the middle east. He really did not like us being in the Middle East. When the Saudis called for our help, Osama objected. When we remained after the Gulf War, Osama had had it. He wanted us out, and issued commands for his followers to kill any Americans, anytime, anywhere. Until then he did not truly posess that desire. And this snowballed into Sept. 11th. <<<If in the last 10 years the UN had controlled IRAQi weapons closely , with various countries , inc US, UK etc NOT supplying parts for WMD, we would not be in this predicament.>>> Well, one, I think someone else anwered the fact that the UN DID try to control them. Saddam was vioating the resolutions and jerking around the inspectors (and kicking them out). What arguable could have been done, according to resolutions, was the use of force THEN to lessen matters. But no one wanted war then, so we just let it build up until it seems inevitable. So we could have used force then or now. Personally, I think we should have used it then, as it would have been a lot less. But there are other issues to that. And I think (I really don't want to dig out a book) that most of the parts came from sources other than the US. Some of the basic stuff that we might have given them in the past was either used in Iraq/Iran, the Gulf War, or taken back after the Gulf War by UN inspecctors. But I can look that up if you like. <<<1) There have been quite a few opportunities that could have prevented us getting to a point where war is necessary>>> Agreed. Much like following though on OUR end of the UN resolutions, and using force where needed. Really, we (or France/Germany) slacked off on our duties to these UN Resolutions. <<<2) It is still not too late to prevent a war taking place.>>> Agreed. I fully support the UN work currently, though I feel that this time around, should the UN fail, it's time for us to make good on all the threats posed by the past UN resolutions. That is why I said IF and WHEN the use of force occurs, it will be justified (i.e., the UN fails in its task) <<<3) If there is serious evidence that Saddam presents a clear and present danger, and the US has that evidence, they should ensure that the rest of the UN security council is presented with that evidence, allowing a pre-emptive military strike to take place.>>> Again, as I said, the US probably knows a LOT of info about the dangers Saddam presents, some specific intelligence. The problem I said earlier is that if the US states WHAT it knows, it has to say HOW it knows, thus giving up and losing it's intelligence source. One really wouldn't want to reveal to the UN (and foreign countries, and possibly the entire world) HOW it finds out the intelligence it does find out. <<<In that situation I could not argue that that is not the right thing to do . I still wouldnt be happy but...... >>> Well, I don't like the use of force either. But sometimes it seems needed. Would you kill a baby? No. No one would. Would you kill one baby if it meant saving 1000? Therein we enter philosophy, so I'll not entertain the "Will you kill a baby if it meant...." arguments, since they aren't relevant here. I hope this all helped you out. I was going to watch a DVD, so I didn't want to research anything. But if you have specific areas of interest you want me to research, let me know. Edit: Oooh...just to go against Kalheka (sp?), he says that the UN really is ineffective. Actually, as shown above, it's not THEM that are ineffective, it's the fact that no one wants to follow through on the UN agreements against Iraq. The UN has many good resolutions out there. When it comes to UN forces, ask a Military soldier, and they'll tell you how ineffective they are. so, the UN sucks at sounding intimidating, but they make good policies and resolutions for other places. I might be interning for them this summer, so... THE UN DOES A GREAT JOB!!! YAY UN!!! THE UN PEOPLE ARE MY HEROES!!!! I HAVE A UN POSTER ON MY WALL NEXT TO BATMAN AND SUPERMAN!!! _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. This comment was edited by Ulic Belouve on Jan 22 2003 07:17pm. |
|
Kalheka - Student
|
Khalaas, I can't really answer your question, but I can say this:
Adolph Hitler came to power because Europe and the US did nothing when they had the chance. The same situation applies to Iraq. 12 years have gone by with this country in defiance of UN sanctions. It makes the UN look ineffective to allow this to go on. In fact the UN really is ineffective. Consider this also: Iraq is a radical country, semi-aligned with muslim terrorist ideals. Letting a country like that have it's way only encourages more violent acts against the rest of the world as a whole. Oh, and in response to item 3. Saddam has kept that evidence hidden by denying UN inspectors access. The UN has reason enough just on that, but refuse to act. _______________ Death is only the beginning. This comment was edited by Kalheka on Jan 22 2003 06:06pm. |
|
Jedi Al Khalaas - Student
|
Please answer this question.(apologies for the 'Tits' comment)
Why does the US government (UK just shadow US and dont count as having an opinion) seem to be the only governent actively pushing for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq? This is a serious question and the answer could change my opinion. To follow on from this : If the US govt. is the only one to think that war is the only way to settle the issue of 'Rogue Nation Iraq' , then the reason , imo, is because of the US has , made a series of mistakes around policy concerning Iraq for the last 15 or so years. This has left the US only one option to clean up this mess today, and that is war , in which they some how kill Saddam Hussein and instigate 'regime change'. IF they had killed him in the 1st GW , we would not be in this predicament. IF they has disengaged with Saddam properly after IRAN/IRAQ we wouldnt be in this predicament. If in the last 10 years the UN had controlled IRAQi weapons closely , with various countries , inc US, UK etc NOT supplying parts for WMD, we would not be in this predicament. OK, whats my point , 1) There have been quite a few opportunities that could have prevented us getting to a point where war is necessary 2) It is still not too late to prevent a war taking place. 3) If there is serious evidence that Saddam presents a clear and present danger, and the US has that evidence, they should ensure that the rest of the UN security council is presented with that evidence, allowing a pre-emptive military strike to take place. In that situation I could not argue that that is not the right thing to do . I still wouldnt be happy but...... This comment was edited by Jedi Al Khalaas on Jan 22 2003 05:24pm. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
See? Now Sinya, took the "Wrong to kill" argument, but expanded on it, with some intelligent input and rationale. It is a good rival, and if he backed it up with some form of source, it would be a better rival. I suggest to Sinya and others to try that, as it is a wonderful way to discuss things.
But at least I'm glad that people brought it up a notch and added some form of rationale. Or maybe just Sinya. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Sniya - Student
|
Ulic the way you say that you make it sounld like a bad argument:its bad to kill people
If the majority of religions from all over the world believe this is so mabey it should be considered.Sending people to war is sending people to kill people, this world that is suposidly much less warlike than previous eras kill more people than ever.If we personly carried out all the killings we believe should be done "for world peace".We could not do it.Do not ulic throw away one of the most basic(I agree primative) arguments humans have had scince people became civilised.One of the things they discovered from american records from from i think it was WWII was that conscripted people did not actully kill many people.People must be "trained" to kill, their instinct is not to kill. This disscussion is very intresting they dont disscuss half this stuff on the news etc 2ndly ulic you live in the U.S.A. a democracy.The people voted the goverment in,yes all of you give them the power they have,so you all have every right to bug the president as much as you want.The goverment is not allways right the history of many democracys shows they have made mistakes that the now know were wrong and would go back and change them if they could,do not quieten down and let them make the next mistake.Just as the goverment keeps us in chek we must keep the goverment in cheak. 3rdly-OUCH that hurt Ulic oh and everyone else keep adding comments _______________ The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. Bertrand Russell http://www.thejediacademy.net/forums_detail_page.php?f_id=970 This comment was edited by Sniya on Jan 22 2003 03:34pm. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
Am I the only one making significant contributions to the ARGUMENT at hand?
I made a good case. What do I get back? "My pychology buddy thinks you are arrogant." Excuse me? What does that have to do with the argument? The issue as to whether or not this is a debate? What does that have to do with refuting the argument about Iraq. I seriously doubt that all of you are unintelligent enough that your best counter-argument is an "you're arrogant." or "you're getting on my tits." At least TRY to come up with some relevant facts. I'll be working on bringing the context of International law into this discussion, using case studies and earlier precedence. I would suggest that if you wish to counter my ARGUMENT, and not the AUTHOR, that you attempt a similar style of argument construction. None of my opinions and none of your opinions matter. That is an issue of credibility. The arrogance issue, the debate issue, the liberl issue, and the education issue, is all a mistake in the topicality area. You all have seemed to stoop to attack the quality of the author, instead of attacking their argument. Keep in mind that most of my argument is based on facts that come from credible sources, so attacking me will not damage the argument at hand. Please, let's get theis back to an intelligent discussion of the matter at hand. And try to sound intelligent in argument, none of this "Don't go to war because it's bad to bomb people." You guys are smarter than that, please try to show it. And what I mean in reference to "Leave the President and the decision makers alone." is that none of us are even CLOSE to bein able to judge their actions. We just don't know enough. We do, however, have a wonderful heirachy of education in the government. The President might not know everything, but he has a group of advisors tho advise him, who know what they are doing. These advisors have advisors, who know what they are doing. And even THESE advisors have people to advise them, who command a team of researchers. The person I talked to is one of these researchers. these researchers take their advise from hat they find, studies. These studies involve you people also, and myself, who are not very informed. Thus, we are plugged in to the proper spot on the totem pole. If we really did know what what going on, became more educated in the area, we would merely move up, but would not even be close to knowing the issues the President faces. Really, 80% of America only THINK they know what is going on. 10% KNOW what is going on, but really can't affect anything. The last 10% are the only ones who even have a RIGHT to bug the President and decision makers, sincee they understand enough. So if there is ANYONE to bug, it is the informed, or the people that CAN affect the decisions. But really, my point is, don't bother, since we all know so very little of the situation. While I may know a bit more of it than the rest of you, I still do not know enough. I could refute Sinya on his Germany argument, but I will let that one go, and override it with an argument later. And really, if you don't want to enter into a debate, or consider this a debate, or if my agressive nature in argument "gets on your tits", then you don't have to read any of these posts or come here. But I do encourage you to read this, make an INFORMED opinion, and engage in an INTELLIGENT debate. A "my psychologist buddy thinks..." isn't going to cut it. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. This comment was edited by Ulic Belouve on Jan 22 2003 03:18pm. |
|
Sniya - Student
|
Ok ulic in relation to your first question probably no.(i liked it when i did not need to read posts 2 times to understand)
And another thing this is NOT a debate.debate is open verbal war,you have debates with your enimies(unless its a shool debate or summit) this is a desscussion in which we use are own Knowthedge and opinions to help each other find the correct answer. Secondly i totally disagree with this statement "When it happens, it will be necessary. Leave the President and decision makers alone," this is a terrible mistake for any country to make Let those in power decide.The problem with this is any evil man can do what he wishes.I think world war two is an example mabey not a good one and i do not dought your ability to tear my arguement to shreds after my post.-HItler came into power and he was an evil man in my opinion he gave out orders that should never have been given out.The orders even if dissagreed were carried out because they were orders.That is a reason given by many involved in WWIIs terrible acts. 3rdly everyone education is a tool.An inadiquate man will never become a great man the matter what education he gets to quote oscar wild(oh nuts did i misspell his name)-"Education is admirble thing but it is worth remembering noting worth knowing can be taught. Than you Ulic BTW for adding a bit more depth to the argument. _______________ The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. Bertrand Russell http://www.thejediacademy.net/forums_detail_page.php?f_id=970 |
|
Fizz of Belouve - Student 
|
I absoluteley don't know what the U.S. might have developed, but again, and again they state out that this will be a "clean" war. This is simply bogus.
smarter bombs, now GPS instead of laser navigation. Very good. And this is what makes me particularly angry. There is no "clean" or whatsoever war. a war is a war is a war is a war (sounds familiar ? 
Thus they should at least have the balls to tell the truth. Propaganda never solves problems. _______________ One of the Belouve boys, founder of the mighty FiZZsters Midbie council #20 - Fizz - #1933 - Jan '03 - Aug '04 "Renfield, you idiot!" |
|
Jedi Al Khalaas - Student
|
I agree with Gabba.
and Ulic, I am no Psychologist , but reading your posts here and in the other Thread arguing with Zero and the JATs, I will tell you one fact.....You are getting on my tits!!! This comment was edited by Jedi Al Khalaas on Jan 22 2003 10:37am. |
|
Hector Thrawn - Ex-Student
|
trying a out new toys, that's an interesting way of looking at it. however i would like to point out that almost all new toys that the armed forces aquired were created during war, not before. also, i dont remmember any significant developments in military technology that we have not used in Afganistan so if you know of anything new i would be vary interested. (sorry about the whol liberal thing, it was supposed to be funny in a satirical/sarcastic way). |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
Actually, Gabba, I was putting together the facts. None of this is my own knowledge, since my own knowledge does not carry very much weight. I am merely doing what a good debater should do: force you to bow down to the facts. If you wish to refute, again, refute with facts.
If your psychology friend wish to think that I am arrogant or demented because I simply am tossing out facts that are difficult to refute, then I sure hope he never has to treat anyone serious. The obvious point of a debate is to get the other side to concede to your viewpoint. You do this through heavy facts as well as by attacking the legitimacy of their argument. I am doing both: using heavy facts from reputable sources, as well as attacking the legitimacy of opposing arguments such as your own. I am attacking your argument, not you, when I say that one should go take some relevant courses, get a security clearance, etc. I am nt saying to become smart, I am saying to gain access to information that may help you make a valid refutation. If you and your friend gained access to information regarding the art of debate, you would perhaps be able to see where I am coming from. I am not making claims based soley on my intelligence, but from quoted sources. In my argument, I only said ONCE that I feel the use of force, when used, will be necessary. Then I proceeded to include two pages worth of factual information from sources other than myself. If anything is arrogant, it is the facts, coming from people much more eduacted than you, me, or your friend. And a word of advice, that comes from myself and other politicians: psychology and politics do not mix. My point that I made earlier: don't step up to the debate podium unless you have good facts to use, and back them up. If you want to just toss out your own random thought, fine, but it won't hold much against a sound argument. I'm not saying I'm right. I just chose a side to argue, and am saying that it will be difficult to argue against what case I have laid out. I can very well tear my own case apart, with solid facts against going to war with Iraq. But I wish to see if anyone else out there can learn the art and bring up solid facts in good argument. If there is anything I insult, it is a person's skill in debate. I also feel it is a weak move to refute an arguement with a "my psychologist friend thinks you're arrogant." I don't need a psychology degree to tell that. ANY good debater is arrogant. No debater wants to let the opposing side have even one inch of ground. We must be arrogant, agressive, and attacking. That is the psychology of being a good debater. I could dismiss your arguments already, based on the fact that you are now relying on a psychologist viewpoint, and not any heavy facts pertinent to the argument at hand. But I will allow you to develop the art further and have more chances. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |