december, you took this:
And turned it into this:
This is the sort of word-mangling that makes your OP so transparently false. jr8 posted a perfectly reasonable obervation about the implications of the Iraq war, and the need for future accountability. You turned it into an “anti-American” statement.
All I can say is, nice try, but still the same sort of bull.
Did I? Note that a poster with confidence in America’s morality and competence might have written:
The fact that the war is effectively a fait accompli does not remove the need to encourage further beneficial US military action.
So now the litmus test is what you think a poster with confidence in America’s morality and competence might have written?
Nope, still too vague. Keep trying!
Enjoy,
Steven
december, from my view the biggest thing you have yet to grasp is that Bush and his administration do not equal “America.” I have very grave doubts about the competence of the Bush administration, and some concerns about its morality. In my view that makes me a vigilant and dutiful American citizen, not an “anti-American.” In fact I could easily call you anti-American for attempting to silence my viewpoint. It’s bizarre that you still haven’t managed to digest these fairly basic principles. Most of us posting in this thread would like to see a different foreign policy; that does not make us “anti-American.”
Wrong again, december. Your statement is no better or worse than jr8’s statement, from an pro/anti-American standpoint.
I read jr8 as talking about preventing specious military action in the future. His statement does not cast judgments on whether America is or is not likely to attempt such actions, but only states that specious action should be prevented, something which (I hope) we can agree on. The fact is that you are the one doing the assuming here, about jr8’s motive. Does that make you anti-jr8? :eek:
Stop spinning, december. You’re making yourself dizzy.
I have faith in America’s morality, but I don’t have confidence that this or any future military action was or will be done prudently with the best interests of the world in mind.
That seems to go agianst you logic completely. You probably think I am lying and don’t actually believe in American morality.
But you are skipping one important detail.
He talks about the Admistration being held accountable, you talk about American morality. What’s the deal? The Administration is not America. America, as a conscious entity didn’t decide that it shold attack Iraq. It may have gone along, but it didn’t make the decision. Nobody cared about Iraq before Bush started talking about it.
You can’t assume that Bush, being chosen by the American people, is the embodiment of American morality. Individuals can make mistakes and they can be evil.
BTW, I already had to drag out the list of fallacies that composed your other thread of “Are liberals upset because the Homeland Security Department is doing a good job” thread. I don’t have the time for that now. But I’ll give you a hint. Assuming that the military action is beneficial isn’t provable either. There are agian, unmeasurable variables that are always common when dealing with human beings. That’s why people always fight over subjective things. If the goodness of our war in Iraq or the overall benefit could be put on a scale and measured objectivley, then there would be no problem, but the truth is the actual benefits of the action in Iraq are unclear, even to the Iraqis now.
How am I confident in Americas morality and competence? I think that “AMERICANS” will not reelect Bush if it becomes evident that his actions did more harm than good. If you don’t trust the Administration, doesn’t mean that you don’t trust your fellow Americans any more. It means you don’t trust those guys in the Whitehouse and Pentagon. If this were not possilbe then we would never have bad presidents. Did you ever criticize Clinton? But wait! where was your confidence in American morality and competency? So lets stop right here: There is the Administration, and there is America. America gets together every 4 years and picks a guy to do what he wants to do for 4 years. If he does something that he didn’t talk about in the election, then the American people can’t be construed as having chosen that action. 911 required independent action, so that’s not the problem. The problem is when people can’t seperate America and the Adminstration.
they aren’t the same.
It was intended to be parallel, as an illustration of the difference.
And mine talks only about encouraging beneficial military action in the future.
Although I agree as a point of logic, ISTM jr8’s statement does imply a likelihood that future military action would be specious, and mine implies a likelihood that it will be beneficial.
I said the statement was an anti-Americanism.
futureman, it’s OK with me if you don’t have confidence that any future US military action was or will be done prudently with the best interests of the world in mind. For all I know, you might be right. However, that sort of negative attitude towards the US shows a certain POV. Compare it with my attitude toward the UN. I do not have confidence that action by the United Nations would be done prudently or with the best interests of the world in mind. You can call me “anti-UN”, and I won’t deny it, nor will I consider it a slur.
Mandelstam, I am not doing anything to “silence your viewpoint.” I am merely disagreeing with it and criticizing it. Nor are you attempting to silence the President’s viewpoint when you disagree with him or criticize him. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from disagreement.
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I’ve been laughing too hard. december: please stop begging the question. Avalonian got it exactly right. I think I’ve made my doubts about both the motivations behind the Iraq war and the consequences thereof quite clear in various threads to which we’ve all posted.
I’ve never questioned America’s morality or its competence, and am extremely proud of the ideals to which America aspires. I’ve also made no secret of my views of the morality and competence of the current Administration, whom I do not consider to be acting in the best interests of the country (although I’m willing to concede that they may believe they are doing so; I won’t claim to be a mindreader in that regard).
I’m not sure there’s any point in being the umpteenth person in this thread to remind you that there is a difference between America (as a country and as a collective representative ideology) and the administration currently in office, and that to criticize the latter is not the same as criticizing the former. Indeed, I’ve attempted to make the point that, if anything, the ability to criticize the leadership of one’s country is exactly the sort of American values we are trying to instill in Iraq and elsewhere.
However, that being said, if my views on President Bush, his Cabinet and their policies and actions make me “anti-American” in your eyes, well, that’s a cross I’m willing to bear.
“I am not doing anything to “silence your viewpoint.” I am merely disagreeing with it and criticizing it”
But you are also characterizing it as anti-American; which goes beyond mere disagreement or criticism. If you understand that freedom of speech doesn’t require freedom from disagreement, you ought to understand that there is more than one way to be an upstanding American. Got it?
From this biased source, an interesting quote:
Is december’s “anti-americanism” more a reaction to a blurring between patriotism and nationalism (using Orwell’s definitions)?
I can understand that people who are patriotic might feel nervous because the current Administration seems to be leading the country in a nationalist direction.
I can understand people who are comfortable with the direction of the current Administration might not perceive the difference between the two viewpoints, and would view criticism of the Administration as “unpatriotic” or “anti-american”.
Just trying to help. We now return you to the trainwreck already in progress…
How does his statement make such an implication?It read:
Try this on: “Charlie, you committed three errors in the baseball game today. If you practice, you may prevent future bad plays.”
Does this seem to you to imply that future chances by this fielder will be errors? Or does it rather state that it is important to be proactive in order to minimize future mistakes, but that plays may end up being good or bad? Is this statement “anti-Charlie”? Could it be made by a person who is very “pro-Charlie” but anti-error? Could it be made by someone who wants Charlie to be the very best that he can be?
Thought I would just try to put a finger in the dike, feeling that the rest will probably just come crashing down anyway.
Fair enough, although I will point out that the bill of 10-OCT-2002 “To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” passed the House 296 to 133 and passed the Senate 77 to 23. These overwhelming majorities made the Iraq war more than just George W. Bush’s personal decision.
Yes. Do you see my point that when some anti-war protestor calls Bush a Nazi, that may be rude or go beyond mere criticism, but it doesn’t amount to restricting the President’s freedom of speech.
Because one normally addresses problems one thinks might well occur.
Scruff – interesting quote.
In this case, one has seen it occur just this month, and one would like to work to make sure that it does not occur again. You have said that this is an anti-American statement; your anti-Americanism reduces to being not in favor of this particular event by this particular administration. As others have observed, you seem not to understand that one may be exceptionally pro-American, and not want to see an American mistake recur.
You previously gave the example of 3 errors in a baseball game. Errors are objective. They’re assigned by the Official Scorer. OTOH jr8’s description of the War in Iraq as “specious” is his subjective judgment. I assume he meant it as a pejorative. “Specious” means “Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious.” I guess he was using a kind of shorthand to say that the value or the purpose of the war was specious.
If jr8 meant to imply that the war in Iraq was a failure, then I strongly disagree with his judgment. If he meant that the Administration didn’t give their real reasons, then I also disagree.
“Do you see my point that when some anti-war protestor calls Bush a Nazi, that may be rude or go beyond mere criticism, but it doesn’t amount to restricting the President’s freedom of speech.”
Was that your point? I thought the topic of this thread has consistently been anti-Americanism–whether it exists or not–and not free speech.
You may think I intended to bring up free speech when I said hypotheticall that I could–though in fact I haven’t and wouldn’t–argue that your attempt to silence my dissent was anti-American. If so, you are wrong. Not every attempt to silence someone’s opinion amounts to a bar on free speech; some things are more subtle than that. As the Tom Tomorrow cartoon illustrates, a self-styled patriotism that interprets criticism of Bush’s policies as unpatriotic or anti-American is in fact attempting to silence dissent. But that it not to say that such a self-styled patriotism constitutes a technical violation of the constitution or something of that order.
In any case, just for the record, I was speaking hypothetically: I’m not arguing that you are anti-American, and I don’t feel silenced by you, b/c I feel very secure about my citizenship and very unmoved by charges of anti-Americanism–by you or anyone else.
As to protesters calling Bush a nazi. How many such protesters are there? I’ve taken part in several anti-war protests by now and I can assure you that it’s not a common theme.
I have seen photos of some signs. They may be unusual FAIK.
A quick google check produced
Bush-Hitler Remark Sinks Movie Exec
Bush/Hitler Invades Czechoslovakia/Iraq: World Calls For Peace With Honor
Bush-Hitler Comparison Unjust (This one features a picture of Bush with a Hitler mustache.)
New Black Panthers: ‘Bush Like a Modern Adolf Hitler’
There are more “Bush-Hitler” hits, and I haven’t even tried “Bush-Nazi” and “Bush-Fascist”.
And these links are conclusive of what december?
I feel a flashback coming on:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=162324&highlight=stalinists
That is the rememberance of our good friend december trying to show just how the peace movement was run by stalinists.
You asked how many protestors called Bush a fascist. The links show that a fair number have done so. My point, which I now understand you agree with, was that name-calling is not an infringement on free speech.
Mandelstam, I assumed you were using paralipsis or apophasis when you wrote, “In fact I could easily call you anti-American for attempting to silence my viewpoint.” I apologize for my mistaken assumption.
RandySpears, It’s a fact that ANSWER is run by stalinists. But, now we have an even juicier question: To what degree was the peace movement run by people on Saddam’s payroll?