What I’ve found is that people who trust the gubmint (a government in practice, as opposed to government in theory) do so for one or both of the following reasons:
A desperate need to be led. They’ll essentially follow anybody who stands up and says “follow me”. It’s tied to a general longing for an eternal childhood, I would guess.
A gubmint that says things they already agree with beforehand.
The sad thing is that blind trust of gubmint is really antithetical to the philosophical underpinnings of the American ideal government. The American ideal strongly presumes a firm distrust of gubmint.
Wow, great post… I wish i had something more to add because i have a general mistrust for government, but all my points have pretty much been made above. One of my strongest agreements is that people trust the government because its easier than thinking for yourself.
A short tangent: Our leaders have assured that war with Iraq will provide no economic gain through control of Iraqi oil, and that after a possible war, the oil will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people. I will be pissed if i find out afterwards that we do decide to use any control of that oil for economic gain- that says to me that war was more for econ than security. It also says that gov’t has been lying. I would be even more pissed if we invade Iraq and find no WMD… of course im speculating, we will have to wait and see.
Let’s take the OP’s examples:
[ul][li]Gulf of Tonkin - As I recall there was a lot of skepticism about this from the get go and it was the control that the Democratic President had over the Congress that won the day for him. Later the truth came out and contributed to LBJ’s decision not to run again.[/li][li]Watergate - This was a real mess. The big problem wasn’t the breakin but the cover-up. If anything this is a case to prove the futility of trying to keep things secret.[/li][li]“read my lips” - bad example because Bush, Sr. believed what he was saying, at the time. It was later that he needed Congress (Democrat controlled) and after a big bow-wow, he agreed to raise taxes.[/li][li]Lewinski - again proves that telling lies is not a good idea. The truth came out and the public didn’t need a “smoking cigar” to decide he was messing around. The only thing though that mattered was the lie made to the Grand Jury and again nobody believed him.[/ul][/li]
All that the above proves is that our system has a knack of finding out the truth.
So because of the possibility that our information might have been compromised we just broadcast everything. I’m sure this would go a long way in recruiting spys and informers, in the future.
Ever heard “give them an inch and they want a mile”? Powell gave an inch and all he has gotten from it is criticism and "we want more."
Again we just hand over everything, because they might know a little something.
Yes, and how many times is it used in public debate over an issue. Have you ever read any of the Congressional Record? I did once for a school assignment. My opinion here is that if everything was disclosed you would get a reaction like "Don’t confuse me with the facts."
Yes, the OP mentioned Iraq and then said he didn’t want to debate it (nice tactic). You are right, but have we gone to war without UN approval? France and Germany are putting on a good face to cover the fact that they have their own agendas in this matter. So, why is the approval of the Security Council so sacrosanct?
[ul] [sup]How many poker hands have you won by telling the other players you were bluffing?[/sup][/ul]
I couldn’t finish Lies My Teacher Told Me, the first chapters were repeating such obvious well-known things. The native Americans were mistreated? No shit! Never heard about that one before!
Sounds like maybe I shoulda skipped those obvious parts, maybe there was less well-known stuff later on.
Yeah, it was a “tactic”, it had nothing to do with the fact that there are already other threads on that very subject and this one is a different subject. Ya got me there, kniz.
I know I’ve said this a gazillion times before, but…
FAITH and EVIDENCE are not mutually exclusive. True faith (as opposed to blind faith) is BASED on evidence, without purporting to have actual proof. I have faith that my physician is trustworthy and competent, for example, without having absolute proof that it’s so. That’s because he has given me reason to trust him, i.e. I have evidence that he is worthy of trust.
This dichotomy between faith and evidence is a false one, to say the least.
How pissed are you going to be if we free Iraq and it costs us multi-billions of dollars? Would you be pissed if Iraq paid us back at least a portion of what it cost us? If France doesn’t support us in the end and we do go ahead [pure speculation on my part) should they continue to enjoy the oil contracts they presently have with Saddam controlled Iraq? Did we take over and profit from Iraq’s oil wells, near Kuwait 12 years ago, despite how much it cost us to put out the fires after he set them afire?
Does that mean you think there is a possibility that there are WMDs? If not why is Saddam playing games instead of cooperating fully with the inspectors? Why do you believe him despite all he’s done? Why do you trust him, even if there is only a chance (your slant not mine) he has such weapons?
[ul][sup]Are we really the wolf and Saddam “Little Red Riding Hood?”[/sup][/ul]
I find it interesting that very few people who actually trust the government on Iraq have responded. Can they not justify their trust? Or are they ignoring this thread, assuming their POV will just be bashed fifteen ways to Sunday no matter what they say?
I think it’s a damn shame, because I want to hear from folks like december, Dewey, and the other prominent, articulate conservative posters. Perhaps someone could point this thread out to them? I’d like to see some defense of their POV…
That’s why it was so good. I didn’t say “lousy”, “unfair”, “underhanded”, “silly” or any other adjectives that would have been condemning it. Guess what I’ve used tactics before, but of course they probably at best have been silly.
It wasn’t a tactic at all, good or bad. I just didn’t want this to be yet another “should we go to war with Iraq” thread. It was meant to be about generally trusting the government.
I believe this is called a false dichotomy or something of that order. Surely the only two choices aren’t to either hide everything or to spill you guts.
Another Hobson’s Choice which doesn’t have to be made. I can’t believe that our super duper intelligence agents can’t sanitize things a little better than you seem think.
And, of course, what Powell presented were a bunch of pictures and recordings. Those are just raw data and it’s the analysis that counts. Data are interpreted according to a set of assumptions. The question for me is do the facts support the assumptions? Who knows?
Yes, I’ve read the Congressional Record. That is one place, but commitee proceedings are a lot more important and the Federal Register publishes the law and the proposed implementation of it for comment and they get a lot of it. After the law has passed there isn’t a lot of room for public input on its passage, only on how it is executed.
Your statement about “don’t confuse me with the facts” sort of indicates that you think the American Experiment in self government doesn’t work too well.
Yes, in Korea but that was in response to a direct assault, not intelligence analysis and UN approval was immediately sought and obtained.
The claim of the administration is that they are doing this to enforce UN resolutions. In that case shouldn’t we get UN backing on the means of that enforcement?
And I don’t believe GW when he says that anyway. There are several in the administration who have been out to get Iraq independendent of UN resolutions for a long time.
Answering for myself here and not Purplefloyd, I don’t know whether or not Saddam has WMDs. That is what the inspectors are there to determine. And, I think it is good that they are in there and pressing hard, and even that the U.S. is keeping open the possibility of the use of force if there is not compliance on the Iraqi side. However, I think such force should only be a very last resort and should only be used if there is a credible argument not this is the only way to disarm or effectly contain Saddam.
Well, I think it shows a bit of an inability to put yourself in the other guy’s position if you can’t understand why Saddam might not like the intrusiveness of all of this. I mean, sure, if you assume that the U.S. is totally on the side of right and good and that Saddam has nothing to fear if he really doesn’t have WMDs then you would conclude this. But, would it be wise for the Iraqis to conclude this? It is not like the U.S. has no previous history of going to war for trumped up reasons!
Also recall that the non-cooperation by Iraq that led to the withdrawal of the inspectors in 1998 was accompanied by Iraq claims that there were U.S. spies on the inspection team. That U.S. spies were on the UNSCOM team was later published as fact in front-page investigative stories by several major newspapers in the U.S. [Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe] based on sources in the U.S. government and the U.N. (See http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html)
Who is saying Saddam should be trusted? There are rigorous inspections going on Iraq now. Not completely trusting our government is not equivalent to completely trusting Saddam. All we are saying is that neither source has proven themselves to be completely trustworthy. Sure, Saddam’s record is worse but, on the other hand, he is being subjected to way more stringent means of verification than our government (although admittedly our government has more innate openness than the one in Iraq…On the other hand, this Administration’s has made its best efforts to increase secrecy). The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
This one requires Adobe to read. The quote is on page 32 last paragraph.
I think I also saw it in * You Are Being Lied To * by Russ Kick, in the article titled “Apt Pupils,” but I’m too lazy to go downstairs right now and check . . . maybe later, if you’d like me to. I didn’t immediately find it on a quick search of the book’s website, Disinformation but they don’t have all of the book’s articles online.
Well, from where I am sitting all this “I don’t trust the government.” crap sounds like a lack of confidence in our system.
I was not speaking of Korea. In that case, we were almost pushed into the sea, before we knew what hit us. You know that better than I do. I was talking about your accusing the U.S. of not getting U.N. approval to invade Iraq. Have we invaded? Why do you have your BVDs in a wad, about something that hasn’t happened? My poker reference was to the fact that we can’t say “Oh, we aren’t going in if the U.N. doesn’t approve”, because the Saddam will know we aren’t serious.
There have been 17 resolutions and Bush said that if resolution 1441 wasn’t enforced then the U.N. is irrelevent. I don’t want the U.N. to be irrelevent, but if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, unfortunately it is a duck. Lotsa talk is all the U.N. is on this and too many other matters, like Rwanda.
Also, tell us do you really think that France and Germany are so high-minded? Could they have reasons for the position they are taking, other than they are peacemakers? Be honest!
The inspectors are not there to play hide and seek and if Saddam hides good enough then he gets off the hook. The inspectors are there for Saddam to let them inspect and for him to explain what happened to the Chemical and Biological weapons he had when the inspectors left in 1998. He is supposed to cooperate and be willing to go the extra mile. Even Blix, who I had my doubts about, says Saddam isn’t doing this. So far, resolution 1441 is not working, so should the UN pass another resolution to send in more inspectors? That’s what France wants. Then the UN can pass a few more meaningless resolutions. Or the UN can pass a resolution that says “That’s enough, we must show that we enforce what we say.”
If you are going to send other people out to kill someone, or be killed, it pays to make sure it is really necessary. I don’t think GW has made the case that it is necessary.
Once again, our constitution was written by people who didn’t trust elected officials to behave in the public interest unless their power was counterbalanced by another power. The three equal branches were supposed to keep each other in check so that the people didn’t have to depend upon the good will of those who seldom exhibit it. I don’t think my position is too far out of line.
I’m still looking for the place I accused the US of not getting UN approval for invading Iraq.
“I don’t want the UN to be irrelevant but …” It is?
I don’t need to defend France and Germany. They don’t want my defense and I know I am not in on their motives are and I suspect you aren’t either. Just for the record though, it looks to me as if their leaders are responding to the desires of the citizens. Isn’t that the way it is supposed to be done?
When you start dragging in Rwanda and asking that I explain the actions of 3rd and 4th party countries it must be time to decide that we don’t agree and let it go at that.
I’m not an expert on anything relating to the government, so I’m not going to hand out quotes and cites or anything like that. I’m just and average Jane, middle-class, married with kids, who works outside the home.
But on most issues, I trust the government. It’s not out of a desire to “be led” or anything like that. I trust it because I honestly believe that the government, as a whole, isn’t out to deliberately screw me or my fellow American citizens. That’s not to say that we don’t take it up the fanny sometimes, but I don’t think people run for office with the actual intent to mess with my life.
And we as a people do have the right to yank those that do screw up badly enough, either by voting against them at election time, or recalling them (they mayor of the city I live in was recalled just last year, in fact).
The fact that you or I can stand on a corner and scream at the top of our lungs what we think of the government without fear of arrest (for anything besides disturbing the peace, anyway) also makes me feel pretty good about it. I’m not going to get shot, and my family isn’t going to suffer any retribution, if I think and say publically that I think the President sucks major ass (that’s not precisely what I think, but I’m sure you get my point).
In other words, this government has made mistakes. Some enormous ones, indeed. But by and large, it does pretty well most of the time. If it really did suck that badly, there’d have been a successful revolution years ago.
Hope my uneducated, uninformed opinion helps a little.
I believe most of our elected officials and the people they appoint for various positions can be trusted to pursue policies they believe are in the best interests of the United States. Obviously they make unwise choices. Sometimes they have only poor options to choose from. The balance of power creates an environment that keeps corruption and dishonesty to a minimum. I think the problem is that our leaders “spin” statements with too much emphasis on guessing how the message will be received not only in the U.S. but also globally.
I do not think Powell’s evidence was fabricated. Actually, of all of the major players, I think he is the most direct and honest.
I also don’t think the government has the actual goal of screwing the citizienry, but I do think that the primary goal of many if not most politicians is to further their careers, and if that’s at the expense of the country or citizens then that’s OK with them. I’m sure if they ever have qualms about any particular shady thing they do they have lots of ways to justify their actions to themselves, like “the longer I’m in office the more chance I have to do good”. Screwing the people isn’t the primary goal, but helping hem isn’t either. IMO, of course.
[sup]How many poker hands have you won by telling the other players you were bluffing?[/sup][/ul]