thompsonx
Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Okay, I think I see what’s happening here. People are assuming that I am following the scripts. "The scripts" is my term for the automatic kickback in thought that if a person says "A" then they must believe "B" and since they believe "B" they must also believe "C" and "D" as well. The scripts result in an automatic feedback in rhetoric based upon assumptions about the other guys statements. An example of this can be seen in thompsonx’s post:
quote:
Perhaps you could make us a couple of lists.
One list for the treaties that the U.S. has signed and kept and a second one for the treaties that the U.S. has signed and broken.
Oh well so much for honor and integrity.
Clearly he is assuming that I consider the United States to be pure of motive and blameless in action. I don’t. And as I see it there is nothing in my post to base such an assumption on unless he believe’s I am following the scripts. The fact that people follow the scripts is understandable since most people who are on one side of issue "A" tend to line up on the same side of issue "B." For example most people who favor legalized abortion are also against the death penalty. The underlying causes of this would take too long for me to explain here so I’ll just recommend a book: A Conflict of Visions," by Thomas Sowell. Bottom line: I do not follow the scripts.
What I do is step outside the issue to view each issue as part of a larger whole – the underlying motivations of the human animal. Throughout history individuals and groups of people have been seeking to benefit their selves by exploiting others, seeking to feed their power addiction at the expense of others. That is what I mean when I say there is no difference between Nazi Germany or Iran or, for that matter, the neo-conservatives, radical leftists, that nutcase dictator in Venezuela, or just about anybody with a cause. The link isn’t just between Germany and Iran, it is between Germany and Iran and the United States, and Great Britain and Venezuela and in fact, every nation in the world. The link is human beings and while there are many victims, but there are few innocents. I will grant that many people do not consciously know this about themselves. It is a rare thing for the monster to see the monster in the mirror. Muslim fanatics truly believe they are doing good, killing infidels because that’s what God wants them to do. Earth First believes they are doing good (saving the Earth) when they burn down a new housing project. People who knowingly engage in evil because they enjoy it are, if not rare, not common either. As for the amount of evil being done, it is merely a matter of scale. Yes, what Nazi Germany did to Europe is vastly more horrifying that a bully beating up a kid in the school yard, but both are the result of the same fundamental flaw – the human need to feed the power addiction.
Knowing this, one cannot, of course, remain the neutral observer. That would be impossible. At some point you have to make choices (and making no choice at all is still making a choice). You can hold to your policy of never throwing the first punch if you want to but moral absolutism can be immoral in and of itself. Moral absolutism is one of the masks that the power addiction wears. Moral absolutism is also a cop out, it allows people to preen themselves over how morally superior they are while leaving it to others to get their hands dirty. Sometimes you are simply left with no choice but to choose the lesser of two evils. I could have stood there and waited for the bully to hit me first but as I watched him approaching, that shit eating I’m-really-going-to-enjoy-hurting-you grin on his face I knew that I had a simple choice: get beat up again, or defend myself by hitting him first (and then slamming him against the wall hard enough to break his arm). I got two weeks suspension, I also never got bothered by him or any other bully again.
So how does this apply on a larger scale of nations? One could argue that a failure to throw a first punch is even more immoral. The only person benefitting from my throwing the first punch was me (and the bully’s doctor – paid for by my parents) but think how many would have benefitted it Britain and France marched on Germany in 1936 when Germany re-occupied the Rhineland? Most military historians believe that the Germany army at that time would not have been able to stop Britain and France. World War Two and the Holocaust might never have happened. As for today, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, do you believe they would or would not hesitate to use them against us? Do we or do we not have the right to self preservation?
I am not making a blanket declaration for always throwing the first punch and, indeed, I don’t see the need for a military strike against Iran at this time (that opinion may change in the future). But that doesn’t mean I think we should disarm ourselves of our nuclear weapons either. Every time I saw that bully in the hallways, I didn’t put my hands in my pockets, I clenched my fists instead. Sometimes the best way to stop a fight is to make sure the other guy knows you are loaded for bear. Sometimes that buys you enough time to find more peaceful solutions. In a couple of years Bush will be gone (although I’m not really sure I’m looking forward to President Hillary) and who knows, maybe the Iranian people will finally get fed up with the Mullahs enough to toss them on their rears.
Now, I know that some people will come back with something like: "the only reason Iran is seeking nuclear weapons is because our foreign policy is pushing them toward it." I’m not convinced that is entirely true. The Islamofacists ultimate goal is an entirely fundamentalist Muslim world. I doubt that they would abandon that goal even if we gave them everything they wanted (also known as appeasement and history has rendered it’s verdict on that). Nor am I convinced that oil profits are Bush and co.’s only motivation. If all they wanted was more oil all they had to do was ram some bills through congress opening up more drilling in Alaska and off shore. Ultimately, I think Bush is simply inept.
For the record I voted for Bush in the first election (at that time I thought I was choosing the less of two evils) and I voted for myself as a write in candidate in the second election (out of all the options I honestly believed – and still do – that I could do a better job than any of them).
Mark2b:
It appears that mind reading is also one of your talents...although you do not seem to be very good at it.
My question was pretty straightforward....I don't need a page of psychobabble...a simple I don't want to will be good enough for me.
My only point was and is that the U.S, does not have a very good track record of keeping its word.
I find it interesting that you use the bully analogy to justify your junior high school behaviour and then transfer the bully identity from the U.S. to any other nation that the U.S, wants to thug out of thier assets.
thompson
|
RE: New Warheads: America the hypocrites - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread