Jump to content


Photo

It is unfair to blame US government for War in Iraq


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#16 pupluvgurl

pupluvgurl

    ~Lindahh://♥

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,998 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 01:30 PM

IRAQ IS EVIL AND PLANS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD WITH ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION. WE HAVE TO STOP THEM. ...but they might not actually have weapons of destruction.




Doesn't mean they make nuclear weapons that their going to take over the world. Haven't other countries made them too?

#17 Spring Sakura

Spring Sakura

    My family just disowned me!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,539 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 02:15 PM

I had to re-read that quite a couple of times and I'm still not sure what you're really trying to tell me. I see that first, you told me that maintaining stability is not the purpose. Then, you told me that the purpose is to have Iraq and its political system under 100% control by the US. But, that is indeed about maintaining stability.


Sorry if my post confused you. Happens when I'm typing whilst I'm half asleep, plus the fact that my head jumps from idea to idea.
I suppose I kind of get that you're saying that by having the Iraq political system 100% undert US control would create stability in the country ---so I guess I'm just thrown off by the fact that you don't seem to mind the immorality of invading a country and destorying its political system and creating social unrest just so that you rebuild it in the manner that the invading country sees fit. =S

So yeh, after breaking down that part of my argument I can see your logic. If the US did gain 100% control of the country of course it'd be stable --I just have trouble stomaching the idea of a supposedly freedom-loving government to impose on another country like that. You're making it sound like (and I'm not sure if that was your intention) that as long as the US maintains some sort of stability, through whatever means, the fact that invaded Iraq in the first place can be forgiven --which is something I just can't agree with. In my opinion if the US gained 100% control of Iraq it'd be rather similar to a rapist getting away with the crime and then hailed as a hero for it.

But that's sort of getting into the whole personal opinion thing too much and going off topic.

As for the rest of your post, one can say that democracy in America does not work if a majority of its citizens are not up to date to political issues with independent thinking.


Well aren't you asking too much then?
Why aren't you blaming the government for not maintaining a stable enough economy or welfare system that benefits people so that they have TIME to be more politically aware?
Sure you can say that it was the people who chose the political party in the first place, but you're assuming that political parties never go back on their word. How many political leaders have you seen promising lower interest rates or better education systems and then failing to follow up on these promises?
You could then argue that if people were more politically aware then they would see through such things but people dont have the time to be so politically aware.
Social and economic circumstances render it very difficult for people to keep up-to-date with independant thinking.

If you wanted to change this you'd have to go all the way back to when the government was initially put together and have that government organise the economy, educational system, welfare system and so forth perfectly so that people could live in some sort of utopic environment --[i[then[/i] you'd get that world you're asking for.

You ask so much of the American people, and yet I see no suggestions on how these things can be attained.

Doesn't mean they make nuclear weapons that their going to take over the world. Haven't other countries made them too?


See that's the thing the media had been playing on before the war --that because Iraq supposedly had weapons of mass destruction it was planning to take over the world. Yeh, other countries have made them ---the US being the first country and only country to ever use it (anybody remember Hiroshima?). The US is well known for pointing the finger at other countries as soon as the idea of nuclear weapons is brought up. After all, accusing one country of being a threat not only gives them ample reason to invade it (as shown with Iraq) regardless of proof existing or not, and reason to 'occupy' neighbouring countries of that accused country 'for the sake of defence' --which is just an indirect way of invading those other countries anyway.

Edited by Spring Sakura, 22 November 2007 - 02:22 PM.


#18 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 02:49 PM

Sorry if my post confused you. Happens when I'm typing whilst I'm half asleep, plus the fact that my head jumps from idea to idea.
I suppose I kind of get that you're saying that by having the Iraq political system 100% undert US control would create stability in the country ---so I guess I'm just thrown off by the fact that you don't seem to mind the immorality of invading a country and destorying its political system and creating social unrest just so that you rebuild it in the manner that the invading country sees fit. =S

So yeh, after breaking down that part of my argument I can see your logic. If the US did gain 100% control of the country of course it'd be stable --I just have trouble stomaching the idea of a supposedly freedom-loving government to impose on another country like that. You're making it sound like (and I'm not sure if that was your intention) that as long as the US maintains some sort of stability, through whatever means, the fact that invaded Iraq in the first place can be forgiven --which is something I just can't agree with. In my opinion if the US gained 100% control of Iraq it'd be rather similar to a rapist getting away with the crime and then hailed as a hero for it.

But that's sort of getting into the whole personal opinion thing too much and going off topic.


I do mind the immorality of invading Iraq based on myths. The thing that I'm in dispute with is who just take the blame. And I don't think the US government should take all the blame. I think Americans themselves should take some blame like electing Bush not once but twice. Also, I'm not saying this should be forgiven. Those who died in the war will never come back.
I really don't like it when people assumes what I think. Do I ever assume what other people think?

Well aren't you asking too much then?
Why aren't you blaming the government for not maintaining a stable enough economy or welfare system that benefits people so that they have TIME to be more politically aware?
Sure you can say that it was the people who chose the political party in the first place, but you're assuming that political parties never go back on their word. How many political leaders have you seen promising lower interest rates or better education systems and then failing to follow up on these promises?
You could then argue that if people were more politically aware then they would see through such things but people dont have the time to be so politically aware.
Social and economic circumstances render it very difficult for people to keep up-to-date with independant thinking.

If you wanted to change this you'd have to go all the way back to when the government was initially put together and have that government organise the economy, educational system, welfare system and so forth perfectly so that people could live in some sort of utopic environment --[i[then[/i] you'd get that world you're asking for.

You ask so much of the American people, and yet I see no suggestions on how these things can be attained.


I am not telling Americans to not mind their personal affairs. Nor am I asking them to spend a lot of time on political issues. All I am saying is that they should ask themselves for evidence everytime the President tells them about a national security threat. Then, question those doubts to the President. That shouldn't take too much time.
You are right that the poll does not accurately represent the whole of America but it is the only thing one can do to survey the American consensus. Government propaganda is one thing. 71% +/- 5% Americans supporting the propaganda without independently questioning the President's claims is another.
Finally, if you check out my other threads that I started, you will see that I do blame the US government for the US economy and welfare system. Again, it's another assumption from you.

#19 Spring Sakura

Spring Sakura

    My family just disowned me!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,539 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 03:11 PM

I do mind the immorality of invading Iraq based on myths. The thing that I'm in dispute with is who just take the blame. And I don't think the US government should take all the blame. I think Americans themselves should take some blame like electing Bush not once but twice. Also, I'm not saying this should be forgiven. Those who died in the war will never come back.
I really don't like it when people assumes what I think. Do I ever assume what other people think?
I am not telling Americans to not mind their personal affairs. Nor am I asking them to spend a lot of time on political issues. All I am saying is that they should ask themselves for evidence everytime the President tells them about a national security threat. Then, question those doubts to the President. That shouldn't take too much time.
You are right that the poll does not accurately represent the whole of America but it is the only thing one can do to survey the American consensus. Government propaganda is one thing. 71% +/- 5% Americans supporting the propaganda without independently questioning the President's claims is another.
Finally, if you check out my other threads that I started, you will see that I do blame the US government for the US economy and welfare system. Again, it's another assumption from you.


I apologise for making assumptions about the way you think --but I really don't have the time to go through your other posts in order to work out your exact frame of mind. People can do little other than make assumptions of how people think seeing as we can't read minds, I'm sure you've done it once before --and I'm not doing it in order to offend you --its just that I don't know what you're thinking so in order to discuss the issue, I'd have to make do with the assumptions gather from your post about what point you're trying to make. I am sorry if it offended you, it wasn't my intension.

American people do take some of the blame. Because of this incident with Iraq Americans are recieving criticism from around the world, not just the government. The whole "Americans are stupid" idea has been thrown around everywhere lately, you can't say that the American public isn't taking any blame for the war. =S

You are right that the poll does not accurately represent the whole of America but it is the only thing one can do to survey the American consensus. Government propaganda is one thing. 71% +/- 5% Americans supporting the propaganda without independently questioning the President's claims is another.
Finally, if you check out my other threads that I started, you will see that I do blame the US government for the US economy and welfare system. Again, it's another assumption from you.


People are automatically inclined to trust the person in authority. He's the American President --doesnt get much more authoritative than that. Studies have shown that people are so inclined to trust people of authority that they'll even be more likely to cross the road before the lights change if some guy or girl in a suit does it. If a hobo does it, not so much. Do they wonder about whether or not the person in the suit is really more capable of predicting traffic flow than the hobo?
Only people who had access to adequate education or social influences such as their family environment would be able to even think of questioning a person in authority. Many american's live believing that their government would never withold information from them or deliberately mislead them before declaring war, they trusted George W. Bush because he was their President.
...Though I must admit, re-electing him was incredibly...well, 'hmmmmmmmm' is the word I'd use. Once again...education and social background. If you don't have the right education and are influenced by 'hmmmmmmm' people --you inevitably make 'hmmmmmmmm' decisions.

Edited by Spring Sakura, 22 November 2007 - 03:38 PM.


#20 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 05:22 PM

Why do you think a lot of Americans lack the education and social background to think independently? The worldwide consensus is that America has the best universities in the world.
Also, ever since I learned Hitler's propaganda tactics, I have always distrusted politicians. On post #17, you even pointed out how politicians never keep all of their promises.
Lastly, classified government information is nothing new. The FBI and CIA does it. The Pentagon does it especially on their B-22 bomber.

Edited by legendsofaranna, 22 November 2007 - 05:23 PM.


#21 krjeami

krjeami

    BoA's my new gf!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,414 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 05:48 PM

Why do you think a lot of Americans lack the education and social background to think independently?

She is not the only one; hence, the United States Electoral College.

#22 Dracover

Dracover

    I'm an official BoA fan!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 10:17 PM

Yes please explain this I would think that americans had quite a decent education policy. if its so bad that they can think for themselves then whats the difference between them and those mindless suicide bombers who mostly do it cause they belive the words of some crazy extremist leader. if thats the case then america and americans should just keep out of other countries afairs altogether cause u never know when another iraq is gonna happen.

also i must reject the ignorance arguement being put forward. spring sakura ur arguement in general is that the american people in are too ingorant of political issues to make the right choice. this doesnt mean they're not to blame i would place most of the blame on them. if u run over a person in a car and kill them its manslaughter even if you didnt see them. ignorance is not an excuse. you should make yourself aware of such things economic problems isn't a defence people all over the world have economic and social issues but surely they keep a grasp on political issues. most of the political rioting occurs in the poorest countries in the world they surely have it tougher then the american people.

maybe imposing compulsory voting would go a fair way in the USA considering how many people vote its not surprising the ignorance that exists there.

#23 Spring Sakura

Spring Sakura

    My family just disowned me!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,539 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 05:03 AM

Why do you think a lot of Americans lack the education and social background to think independently? The worldwide consensus is that America has the best universities in the world.
Also, ever since I learned Hitler's propaganda tactics, I have always distrusted politicians. On post #17, you even pointed out how politicians never keep all of their promises.
Lastly, classified government information is nothing new. The FBI and CIA does it. The Pentagon does it especially on their B-22 bomber.


America may have some of the best universities in the world but that doesn't mean everyone gets into them. Why can't you see that education and the right social upbringing isn't something that's just handed down to people?
By right social upbringing i don't just mean a loving family and a stable financial situation. I mean 'right' as in the appropriate social upbringing that would cultivate open-minded indvidual thinking --which requires a family or community with authoritative figures who exibit these open-minded attributes. Think about how you came about this interest in politics? If you had a different upbringing, in a different environment --would you still have these beliefs?
Many american's know about hitler's propaganda tactics too, but the thing is that alot of them do not associate Hitler with their own president.

Now I'm not saying that the American people are not partially responsible for the Iraq war, but I just disagree with you saying that it was their fault rather than that of George W. Bush. and his party.

George W. Bush and his party manipulated the American public, using psychological techniques to influence their problem solving and decision making abilities. There are many triggers in social psychology that control the very way we think and behave, and by simply producing the right cues for those triggers, people, no matter how intelligent they are, can be manipulated into acting in a particular way.
I'll give you one example of how easy it really is.
In one study that measured this, all psychologists needed to do to the subjects was to use two different analogies in order to change how a subject would react to a hypothetical decision.

Group 1:
The subjects were presented with an analogy of the current (now past) situation of Iraq with World War II where Suddam was compared to Hitler. 'We didn't act quickly enough then, hence WWII, should the US interfere now in the case of Iraq?' (or something like that --I forget the exact wording)
The majority of the subjects of this study (psychology first year students) after being presented with this analogy supported US interference in regards to Iraq.

HOWEVER

in Group 2:
Subjects were presented with an analogy that compared the Iraq situation with the Vietnam War, and the majority of subjects were found to be against US interference.

It sounds so simple --but it is SO effective. This technique is found in advertising as well as political propaganda and.it.works.

Another effective way to influence peoples' ability to make unbiased decisions is to create a sense of fear and cultivate 'group think' as opposed to poliarisation, which is another tactic used by the Bush administration. After 9/11 the Bush government took full advantage of the state of fear that America was plunged in. It was 'the middle easterns against us' ---the fear was so great that middle easterners who had lived in America or were even born in America became subject to horrible discrimination (as you probably already know). George Bush's ridiculous "War on Terrorism" fed off the fear of Americans reeling from the 9/11 attacks, promoting discrimination under the guise of 'bringing the country together'. After cultivating such wariness against the Middle East, it was a piece of cake for the government to manipulate the American public into supporting the Iraq War.

Weren't you also terrified by the events of 9/11? I know I was, and I live all the way out in Australia. The footage of the twin towers collapsing was played over and over television --and the horror did not wear off no matter how many times it was replayed.
Imagine how afraid you would be if you actually lived in the U.S.? Even the most rational of people were shaken by it and became easy prey for the Bush administration.

America is home to many of the most brilliant psychologists in the world. I mean pretty much all psychologists go by the APA, the America Psychologists Association. Think of the brilliant minds that George Bush and his administation would have had access to. --Coupled with the chaos caused by 9/11 manipulating the American public would be easier than taking candy from a baby.

How can you still say the it was completely the fault of the American public? How did they even stand a chance?

Yes please explain this I would think that americans had quite a decent education policy. if its so bad that they can think for themselves then whats the difference between them and those mindless suicide bombers who mostly do it cause they belive the words of some crazy extremist leader. if thats the case then america and americans should just keep out of other countries afairs altogether cause u never know when another iraq is gonna happen.


It's not the education policy I'm talking about. It's the access to education in some cases, or influence of cultura education in others. Education doesnt necessarily mean school. You can be educated by parents, television, experiences --so forth. Besides, if you aren't educated in things such as propaganda techniques or psychological manipulation --you could hardly defend yourself from it right?

And to be honest I believe America SHOULD keep its nose out of other countries' affairs. Nobody likes nosy buggers.

I didn't quite understand your second sentence.....

also i must reject the ignorance arguement being put forward. spring sakura ur arguement in general is that the american people in are too ingorant of political issues to make the right choice. this doesnt mean they're not to blame i would place most of the blame on them. if u run over a person in a car and kill them its manslaughter even if you didnt see them.


First of all....I might not be an expert on this topic --but I don't think I'd go as far to say I'm putting forward an ignorant argument. =S
And please, I don't mean to be condescending (honestly, because I know my grammar isn't always at its best either) but...I'm having alot of trouble reading this...capital letters and paragraphs might help...

I wasn't saying that just because Americans were 'ignorant' --which they may not have been necessarily (now that I think about it) --just taken advantage of, that they should be held responsible for the Iraq War.
I was saying the America people shouldnt be held completely responsible for the Iraq War because their choices were unfairly influenced by the manipulation of George W. Bush's administration.

It's not that ignorance = blamelessness. It's just that I believe that if we're going to blame the American public for the war due to their ignorance --then we should also blame the government for not cultivating a society where people would have access to facilities or environments that would rectify that ignorance.

Or maybe it isn't that the American people were too politically unaware, but rather that they were taken advantage of?
And who would take advantage? The government --so ...then wouldnt you blame the government more than the people anyway?

I was also arguing against legendsofaranna's claim that Americans should be completely politically aware as though it is something that can be so easily attained --because even though it may appear so --it isn't. 'Political awareness' can be easily manipulated by those who have the resources to do it and unless you are equipped with the appropriate resources yourself --you will fall victim to that manipulation.

As to your analogy --if you had been blindfolded whilst driving by someone and unable to remove that blindfold until after you'd realised what you had done --shouldn't that person that blindfolded you also be held accountable for the death of the victim? Who, then, should have the heavier sentence? The driver, or the individual who blindfolded the driver? Would it be right to let the person who blindfolded the driver to go free with no blame whatsoever?

ignorance is not an excuse. you should make yourself aware of such things economic problems isn't a defence people all over the world have economic and social issues but surely they keep a grasp on political issues. most of the political rioting occurs in the poorest countries in the world they surely have it tougher then the american people.


Ignorance isn't an excuse, which is why i do believe that the American people are partially to blame for the Iraq War, but that doesnt mean that they should bear the entire responsibility of it and have George W. Bush and his administration blameless.
Besides, the Americans are paying the price for their support of the Iraq War. Their troops keep dying in Iraq and the families left behind must live with that, Anti-American views have spread around the road --even to other western countries that were previously mainly pro-american. It wasn't so long ago that Australians LOVED Americans (we don't necessarily hate them now thought), but now we have instances where one friend of mine looked down on Americans so much that at the mention of them she curled her lip and said "Americans" in disdain (mind you, that's just one case --I actually have a few American friends that I like just fine).

People in poorer countries are often more blatantly aware of lies and corruption in politics because they are often subjected to blatant oppression. In America however, it's not blatant oppression that occurs but subtle omission of information --harder to pick up, and harder to condemn.

maybe imposing compulsory voting would go a fair way in the USA considering how many people vote its not surprising the ignorance that exists there.


....?
That one flew over my head completely. :wub:

[once again, argument somewhat all over the place --really sorry, can't argue coherently these days due to tiredness really --but I have to say I still like it =P]

#24 auroraskye

auroraskye

    I know BoA*

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 06:01 AM

I don't quite understand what the point of posts like these are. No one makes posts about social injustice in any other country but America. As if we're the only people who suck.

re: education. I don't know how effective institutional education is when it comes to social injustice.

At this point, NO ONE wants this war to continue. The American government knows they're in some deep shizzle and the American people want our troops home. It's not the fault of JUSt the American people or JUST the American government. The government is vox populi, they "represent" what the American people want. And they have the power to influence what the American people want. The two are intertwined, they cannot be looked at as separate from each other.

I hate shoving this is people's faced, but I was living in New York City when the whole 911 thing happened. And yes, it was a harrowing experience. But you wouldn't believe the backlash that came after it. At that time, I wouldn't be surprised if indeed 71% of the population wanted a war. Everyone was hurt. The entire country was hurting: how could an attack come upon us like this? People were mad, yelling at Indians, and anyone who looked remotely "Arab" about how we hated them, war was going to take care of them ... it was out of anger and hurt and rage that this happened. War was the ultimate manifestation of those emotions, and unfortunately, those emotions stemmed from misguided information from all parties involved. It wasn't a war about osama bin Laden or Hussein. It was an act of violence that came from the same misinformation about the culture or Muslims and Arabs. Which to many people I knew were pretty much the same thing.

The war on the Iraqi people is unfortunate. But no one will get anywhere by pointing fingers. The most important issue here is to stop it as soon as possible.


#25 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 02:27 PM

America may have some of the best universities in the world but that doesn't mean everyone gets into them. Why can't you see that education and the right social upbringing isn't something that's just handed down to people?
By right social upbringing i don't just mean a loving family and a stable financial situation. I mean 'right' as in the appropriate social upbringing that would cultivate open-minded indvidual thinking --which requires a family or community with authoritative figures who exibit these open-minded attributes. Think about how you came about this interest in politics? If you had a different upbringing, in a different environment --would you still have these beliefs?
Many american's know about hitler's propaganda tactics too, but the thing is that alot of them do not associate Hitler with their own president.

Now I'm not saying that the American people are not partially responsible for the Iraq war, but I just disagree with you saying that it was their fault rather than that of George W. Bush. and his party.

George W. Bush and his party manipulated the American public, using psychological techniques to influence their problem solving and decision making abilities. There are many triggers in social psychology that control the very way we think and behave, and by simply producing the right cues for those triggers, people, no matter how intelligent they are, can be manipulated into acting in a particular way.
I'll give you one example of how easy it really is.
In one study that measured this, all psychologists needed to do to the subjects was to use two different analogies in order to change how a subject would react to a hypothetical decision.

Group 1:
The subjects were presented with an analogy of the current (now past) situation of Iraq with World War II where Suddam was compared to Hitler. 'We didn't act quickly enough then, hence WWII, should the US interfere now in the case of Iraq?' (or something like that --I forget the exact wording)
The majority of the subjects of this study (psychology first year students) after being presented with this analogy supported US interference in regards to Iraq.

HOWEVER

in Group 2:
Subjects were presented with an analogy that compared the Iraq situation with the Vietnam War, and the majority of subjects were found to be against US interference.

It sounds so simple --but it is SO effective. This technique is found in advertising as well as political propaganda and.it.works.

Another effective way to influence peoples' ability to make unbiased decisions is to create a sense of fear and cultivate 'group think' as opposed to poliarisation, which is another tactic used by the Bush administration. After 9/11 the Bush government took full advantage of the state of fear that America was plunged in. It was 'the middle easterns against us' ---the fear was so great that middle easterners who had lived in America or were even born in America became subject to horrible discrimination (as you probably already know). George Bush's ridiculous "War on Terrorism" fed off the fear of Americans reeling from the 9/11 attacks, promoting discrimination under the guise of 'bringing the country together'. After cultivating such wariness against the Middle East, it was a piece of cake for the government to manipulate the American public into supporting the Iraq War.

Weren't you also terrified by the events of 9/11? I know I was, and I live all the way out in Australia. The footage of the twin towers collapsing was played over and over television --and the horror did not wear off no matter how many times it was replayed.
Imagine how afraid you would be if you actually lived in the U.S.? Even the most rational of people were shaken by it and became easy prey for the Bush administration.

America is home to many of the most brilliant psychologists in the world. I mean pretty much all psychologists go by the APA, the America Psychologists Association. Think of the brilliant minds that George Bush and his administation would have had access to. --Coupled with the chaos caused by 9/11 manipulating the American public would be easier than taking candy from a baby.

How can you still say the it was completely the fault of the American public? How did they even stand a chance?


It's a shame that other people in other countries are more educated and politically aware than Americans. As a superpower, America is viewed as a leader in the world. It's really a shame that Americans are not as aware in world affairs. I agree that education and social upheaval is not handed down to everyone but American youths are in the best position for education and social upheaval. How many countries in the world have free K-12 education? How many universities in the world can even compete with American universities? How many people in the world are more financially stable than Americans? How did I became interested in politics, you ask? I read the newspaper and then I was curious about world affairs. School was also a big influence, much more than family. School is really the most important requirement for independent thinking. It's more important than a family with open-minded attributes. One often learns a lot more in high school than from family especially if you're studying in a politics/history course. If I was brought up in an environment without schooling, I wouldn't have independent thinking. But if I was bought up in America, I will still have my independent thinking.
Now that I think about it, I think the US government should be partially blamed for manipulation but Americans should also be blamed for not removing the "blindfold" to this manipulation.
6 years ago when 9/11, I was indeed a little scared of what I saw on TV. But I was a lot younger back then. Also, I did not have the advanced independent thinking skills I had today.

And to be honest I believe America SHOULD keep its nose out of other countries' affairs. Nobody likes nosy buggers.

America does not try to interfere with every countries' affairs. For example, they don't really care about what happens in Brazil and Russia. But sometimes, America has to interfere with countries who pose a national security threat to America. I am not pointing to Iraq. I am just saying it in a general sense.

Also, ignore Dracover's comment about your ignorance. I think your points are very acceptable as a counter to my arguments. I like it. You've taught me a lot.

I was also arguing against legendsofaranna's claim that Americans should be completely politically aware as though it is something that can be so easily attained --because even though it may appear so --it isn't. 'Political awareness' can be easily manipulated by those who have the resources to do it and unless you are equipped with the appropriate resources yourself --you will fall victim to that manipulation.

Indeed, it's not something one can learn overnight. But one does not need to be completely politically aware. Just partially politically aware is better than nothing. Also, one does not need to rush themselves to be politically aware. Just read a few articles every night from different sources and different points of view. Half an hour to an hour is fine per day. Read it while in the washroom if that saves more time. Multi-tasking is a life skill. Also, read books from various authors. Sometimes, their analysis are very good depending on the author.

auroraskye:

I don't quite understand what the point of posts like these are. No one makes posts about social injustice in any other country but America. As if we're the only people who suck.

Incorrect. Americans are not the only ones. I am sure many people in other countries especially China are not politically aware as well. I just want this thread to focus on America. Why focus on America? Because I view them as a leader of the world.

At this point, NO ONE wants this war to continue. The American government knows they're in some deep shizzle and the American people want our troops home. It's not the fault of JUSt the American people or JUST the American government. The government is vox populi, they "represent" what the American people want. And they have the power to influence what the American people want. The two are intertwined, they cannot be looked at as separate from each other.

Correct. No one wants this war to continue. But the US government and the United Nations cannot afford the Iraqi violence to escalate. Many deaths will occur if all troops pulled out. It's like what happens if the police suddenly vanishes in a country. Crime will go up when security is not in place.

The war on the Iraqi people is unfortunate. But no one will get anywhere by pointing fingers. The most important issue here is to stop it as soon as possible.

Every country from the Iraqi coalition needs the cooperation from every Iraqi to bring Iraq back into social order. Together, the Iraqi Civil War will be over far sooner. Without that happening, troops will have to occupy Iraq for decades before the Iraqi government can provide security to their country by themselves.

#26 Dracover

Dracover

    I'm an official BoA fan!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 23 November 2007 - 09:40 PM

Also, ignore Dracover's comment about your ignorance. I think your points are very acceptable as a counter to my arguments. I like it. You've taught me a lot.


Excuse me I didn't say he was ignorant. I said I dont believe you can simply say most americans are politically ignorant and let that be ok.


Also while I agree that many other countries are politically unaware your example of China is way off. I find the less political power the people have the more aware they are. It is those that have all the freedoms in the world that take it for granted and dont think much about it. I explained something futher later in this post.



Spring Sakura: I agree with most of what you said except the government is more to blame part. I suppose that's really just personal opinion and underpins most of the other stuff so we can let it rest.

My last point might have needed some explaining. I'll explain it now. I was putting a view of why, or at least one reason why, I thought americans are not as politically aware as some other countries (as you pointed out. I wouldn't know taking your word for it). The voluntary voting means 1/2 the population goes around not even thinking about politics cause they dont have to. They dont need to vote. They dont need to read papers. If they dont ever pay attention then like you said before a big catchy headline comes out IRAQ WILL KILL US then yes they'll be lead the wrong way. With compulsory voting everyone has to think about it. Yes some people will go to the ballot box and donkey vote or something but there would generally be a higher level of awareness. Most people, since they haave to go, will think about these issues more (you might as well your there anyway). We had our federal election today and I saw a homless guy come vote. There were obviously politicians around trying to get some last minute votes and the homless dude was like "no not voting for you dont like ur policy on ..." his homeless for god sakes. i'll post up if our bush ass kissing prime minister gets voted back in if anyones interested.

Edited by Dracover, 23 November 2007 - 09:45 PM.


#27 vagabond

vagabond

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts

Posted 24 November 2007 - 02:47 AM

America does not try to interfere with every countries' affairs. For example, they don't really care about what happens in Brazil and Russia. But sometimes, America has to interfere with countries who pose a national security threat to America. I am not pointing to Iraq. I am just saying it in a general sense.


The USA do try and interfere with alot of countries foreign policy and who they can trade with. US also did have the idea that you were either with them or against them. Meaning that if a country didn't support the invasion of Iraq you were against the US and were hostile country.

It is the US government that you should blame and partly the media in the US that are very bad when it comes to show some kind of neutrality. It's to much poilitics in the US media.

#28 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 24 November 2007 - 07:20 AM

Excuse me I didn't say he was ignorant. I said I dont believe you can simply say most americans are politically ignorant and let that be ok.


You said, "i must reject the ignorance arguement being put forward". I know you're not saying she is totally ignorant. You just directed the ignorance to her argument. There is nothing wrong with that. Even though I agree with you, I don't think she should take that comment too seriously since it's quite offensive in debates. If you think her argument is ignorant, use proof rather than just directly say it. Let her realize her ignorance through your arguments rather than through your direct opinion. This is a skill you need to use to politely counter the other person's arguments.
Also, I think her points are widely held in the community so I want her to say those points so I can counter them. I said some her points are acceptable, not because I believe in some of them, but because those points are popularly held. However, in some other arguments, she managed to convince me like the part how the US government should be partially blamed.

I know I should've explained myself more about this in the last post and I'm sorry if I offended you as well.

Also while I agree that many other countries are politically unaware your example of China is way off. I find the less political power the people have the more aware they are. It is those that have all the freedoms in the world that take it for granted and dont think much about it. I explained something futher later in this post.


This is something I've read from Time Magazine the other day in the library. I didn't read it online. I actually read it off the magazine. http://www.time.com/...28,1647200.html

The article basically says that as long as the Chinese people are getting richer, they do not worry too much about politics.


Vagobond:
A lot of countries but not even close to every countries' affairs. And so far, America only named 3 countries as the axis of evil. They don't think every country who didn't join the Iraqi coalition are hostile.

Edited by legendsofaranna, 24 November 2007 - 07:57 AM.


#29 Dracover

Dracover

    I'm an official BoA fan!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 25 November 2007 - 05:02 AM

I don't get how u read that into my comment, even sakura didnt read it that way. I was refering to his "ignorance" arguement not ignorant arguement theres a big difference there. My comment had nothing to do with her perosnally in any way.


um...yeah I just read it. It says they don't worry because they're getting richer and this means the government in general terms is doing a good job. This doesnt mean they're not politically aware it just means for now they don't talk about it much cause for them there's nothing to talk about. The article's main point is that it's unlikely that democracy would develope in china any time soon. whether democracy is there again has nothing to do with political awarness. i mean the Iraq people under suddam i'm sure knew plenty about politics, the supressive measures undertaken by government, external intervention etc but that doesnt mean they actually get a say.

Edited by Dracover, 25 November 2007 - 05:02 AM.


#30 Spring Sakura

Spring Sakura

    My family just disowned me!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,539 posts

Posted 25 November 2007 - 07:11 AM

It's a shame that other people in other countries are more educated and politically aware than Americans. As a superpower, America is viewed as a leader in the world. It's really a shame that Americans are not as aware in world affairs. I agree that education and social upheaval is not handed down to everyone but American youths are in the best position for education and social upheaval. How many countries in the world have free K-12 education? How many universities in the world can even compete with American universities? How many people in the world are more financially stable than Americans? How did I became interested in politics, you ask? I read the newspaper and then I was curious about world affairs. School was also a big influence, much more than family. School is really the most important requirement for independent thinking. It's more important than a family with open-minded attributes. One often learns a lot more in high school than from family especially if you're studying in a politics/history course. If I was brought up in an environment without schooling, I wouldn't have independent thinking. But if I was bought up in America, I will still have my independent thinking.
Now that I think about it, I think the US government should be partially blamed for manipulation but Americans should also be blamed for not removing the "blindfold" to this manipulation.
6 years ago when 9/11, I was indeed a little scared of what I saw on TV. But I was a lot younger back then. Also, I did not have the advanced independent thinking skills I had today.
America does not try to interfere with every countries' affairs. For example, they don't really care about what happens in Brazil and Russia. But sometimes, America has to interfere with countries who pose a national security threat to America. I am not pointing to Iraq. I am just saying it in a general sense.

Also, ignore Dracover's comment about your ignorance. I think your points are very acceptable as a counter to my arguments. I like it. You've taught me a lot.
Indeed, it's not something one can learn overnight. But one does not need to be completely politically aware. Just partially politically aware is better than nothing. Also, one does not need to rush themselves to be politically aware. Just read a few articles every night from different sources and different points of view. Half an hour to an hour is fine per day. Read it while in the washroom if that saves more time. Multi-tasking is a life skill. Also, read books from various authors. Sometimes, their analysis are very good depending on the author.


Okay, I have to amend my argument at this point. People actually don't really need to be educated in terms of formal education in order to be politically aware. Me being slightly comatose whenever I debate these days overlooked the fact that my very parents are fairly politically aware --even though they aren't necessarily well educated --lol hence rendering alot of my argument sort of redundant at this point.

I maintain, however, that in this case, considering the timing of the propaganda in regards to 9/11, the inability of some americans so see past the manipulations of the government wasn't entirely their fault. In my opinion --they really didn't stand much of chance really. In regards to blaming the people for being unable to remove the blindfold themselves (in reference to that analogy we were discussing earlier) --how can they when they lack the resources to do so?

I agree that education is an important part of nurturing political awareness and interest --but then if we look at it that way --considering so many americans were unable to see past propaganda, if it were not based mostly on psychological manipulation, then there must be something wrong with the education system right?
It's all nice to condemn them and say that it's bad to be so politically ignorant --but how should they fix it? Your examples on how to be more politically aware are effective --BUT it doesnt take into account that some people just don't want to read anything politically related. What then?

Excuse me I didn't say he was ignorant. I said I dont believe you can simply say most americans are politically ignorant and let that be ok.
Also while I agree that many other countries are politically unaware your example of China is way off. I find the less political power the people have the more aware they are. It is those that have all the freedoms in the world that take it for granted and dont think much about it. I explained something futher later in this post.
Spring Sakura: I agree with most of what you said except the government is more to blame part. I suppose that's really just personal opinion and underpins most of the other stuff so we can let it rest.

My last point might have needed some explaining. I'll explain it now. I was putting a view of why, or at least one reason why, I thought americans are not as politically aware as some other countries (as you pointed out. I wouldn't know taking your word for it). The voluntary voting means 1/2 the population goes around not even thinking about politics cause they dont have to. They dont need to vote. They dont need to read papers. If they dont ever pay attention then like you said before a big catchy headline comes out IRAQ WILL KILL US then yes they'll be lead the wrong way. With compulsory voting everyone has to think about it. Yes some people will go to the ballot box and donkey vote or something but there would generally be a higher level of awareness. Most people, since they haave to go, will think about these issues more (you might as well your there anyway). We had our federal election today and I saw a homless guy come vote. There were obviously politicians around trying to get some last minute votes and the homless dude was like "no not voting for you dont like ur policy on ..." his homeless for god sakes. i'll post up if our bush ass kissing prime minister gets voted back in if anyones interested.


hmmm, sounds like you're from australia...=S
I voted that day too.
Anyway, back on topic.
So what if voting is compulsory? That doesn't mean people will be more interested in politics and I dont understand why it means people will have to think about it. How can compulsory voting lead to people being more politically aware in the sense that they are able to gain independant thought political issues? And what's to stop them from simply accepting whatever their local council representatives say.

Also, just because a guy is homeless..doesn't necessarily mean he's any less than the rest of us. For all we know --he could be highly educated --and somewhere in his life just went down the wrong path and never recovered. =S

Also, isn't this entire opinion stemmed from personal opinion...and isn't whether or not the government or the people are more to blame the entire point of the thread? lol

I just think that from a psychological point of view it's clear that the government was in far more control of the situation than the people. They were the ones with the resources, they were the ones that controlled the media, they were the ones to fuel fear in the community with talks of 'war on terrorism' and the threat of nuclear attacks from Iraq to a country that was already terrified of further attacks. It was a controlled environment in many ways --like a psychological study where the American government is the scientist, and the american people the lab rats. If the experiments conducted by the scientists resulted in an epidemic that was spread by the lab rats --shouldn't the scientists take more of the blame --not all of it, but just more?

I don't get how u read that into my comment, even sakura didnt read it that way. I was refering to his "ignorance" arguement not ignorant arguement theres a big difference there. My comment had nothing to do with her perosnally in any way.


Ohhhh, okay, I get it now, I just thought your use of 'ignorance' was a typo or something, my mistake. Umm, anyway this may be a little off topic (well really off topic actually) --but to clarify things...we all know I'm female right?
*points at sig* I always thought that my name and the half of my face there in my sig made it fairly obvious lol ---just clarifying...

Edited by Spring Sakura, 25 November 2007 - 07:20 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users