Was The War in Iraq Necessary

[August1991]

Blair, I went to the web site and read through quite a few of your articles. I could comment on several but instead I'll ask two questions:

Do you think the high average standard of living of Americans (and Canadians) is somehow connected to the low average standard of living of people in, say, India or China?

Do you think the poorest 10% of the world's population have a lower or higher standard of living than the poorest 10%, say, forty years?

[Reverend Blair]

Do you think the high average standard of living of Americans (and Canadians) is somehow connected to the low average standard of living of people in, say, India or China?

Increasingly, yes.

Do you think the poorest 10% of the world's population have a lower or higher standard of living than the poorest 10%, say, forty years?

I'm going to assume assume you meant forty years ago. I'm also going to assume that you are not missing the point on purpose.

They have, compared to the world's richest 10%, much less than they had before. The rising tide has not raised all ships. It has left some taking on water, and some have sunk.

That is completely unacceptable to me an a lot of other people. We have the means and duty to make things better for everyone and instead are choosing to make things worse for some for our own personal enrichment.

[Hugo]

Your reluctance to do that reading disturbs me.

Your reluctance to cite a single piece of evidence disturbs me. Let's summarise:

Me: Can I see some evidence of your assertations?

You: There's loads of evidence out there.

Me: Can I see some?

You: You can start looking for some here.

Me: But can you tell me what specifically leads you to believe what you believe?

You: I already told you where to start looking.

Me: Can you give me your evidence?

You: I can't believe you don't start looking.

Unless, of course, you're telling me that your ideas are based solely on rhetoric, opinion and prejudice, because that's all you've shown me, and that's all you claim you want me to see.

I could find the specific examples

Then do! How many times must you be asked a single question?

I want you to look at the big picture.

I have, far more than you. That's why I can defend my ideas, and you cannot.

They have, compared to the world's richest 10%, much less than they had before. The rising tide has not raised all ships. It has left some taking on water, and some have sunk.

You see what I mean, August? No evidence, no citations, no proof. Just sweeping statements and rhetoric.

[Reverend Blair]

What I'm hearing from you, Hugo, is a wish for raw data with no context. I'm encouraging you, and everybody else, to look at the context as well as the data. The context for your arguments are presented to us every day by neo-conservative/neo-liberal politicians and business pundits.

If you look at what happened in Cancun and again in Florida though, you will see that an increasing number of politicians and trade experts from developing nations are saying that the present thinking and methods are failing, that they are being bullied into bad deals by the US. That doesn't make the news up here, the context is not carried through.

If you will not do the reading and at least attempt to understand the context, that is your problem. I gave you a path to both the context and the raw data.

[Hugo]

I'm encouraging you, and everybody else, to look at the context

No, you are not. You are encouraging us to look at opinion columns from one highly biased and prejudiced website. This site isn't gospel. As I've shown, it isn't even good punditry. You are one of their larger contributors and, as we've seen in this thread and in others, you aren't capable of a good debate and the kind of objective writing that I would expect and hope for. Others include the clown who wrote the column I cited above, written with bigotry and little to no supporting proofs.

If there was a big picture, a global trend, you'd be able to show it with global data and big-picture evidence, like standards of living, life expectancies, real income, relative income and so forth. Unfortunately, all that evidence is against you, so instead you rant about the "context" without ever alluding to what that context is, other than a collection of half-baked left-biased opinion columns.

When you say "big picture" you mean "little picture." You are making some examples of a few local and individual instances - softwood lumber, Shell oil, etc. - and asking us to judge an entire economic modus by them. As long as you restrict your arguments to, say, Shell oil, you are not making an argument against globalisation but against Shell oil.

For instance, let's say I tell you that white males are all rapists and murderers, and for my proof I talk about nothing but Ted Bundy. As long as I do that, I'm not making an argument about white males, but about Ted Bundy. To make it about white males, I would need to show evidence of a widespread trend towards what I'm arguing is a near-universal for white males. That is what you need to do: expand your evidence to fit your actual argument.

In summary:

1) Opinion columns are not evidence.

2) The "big picture" has big evidence to support it, not conjecture.

3) Do your own research.

[August1991]

They have, compared to the world's richest 10%, much less than they had before. The rising tide has not raised all ships. It has left some taking on water, and some have sunk.

Do you have any evidence of that? 40 years puts us at 1964. Try stats on child mortality, hospital beds per 1000, telephones per 1000.

For all I know, it may well be that in some African countries poor people were better off in 1964 than in 2004. Which begs the question, why?

You use the term "compared to the richest 10%". Do you mean that it is best if society reduces the gap between rich and poor, even if it means that everyone has less?

I have the impression Blair that you have started from a premise (anti-US, anti-corporation, anti-private sector) and then you have sought to find evidence or create arguments to support your opinion.

That's not the scientific method.

[idealisttotheend]

You use the term "compared to the richest 10%". Do you mean that it is best if society reduces the gap between rich and poor, even if it means that everyone has less?

Why is it necessary for everyone to have less in order to fairly distribute the benefits of new gains in productivity. If the gap is reduced then the poor may be able to better contribute to the society and then everyone will have more. Plus crime and welfare costs would drop again giving everyone more. There is no evidence to suggest that the rich must have more in order to make society more productive. Yes cheap labour makes more goods but with the wage economy everyone realizes that people must also buy more in order for the money to circulate enough for everyone to have more, (much to the distress of enviromental economists).

Furthermore, what is more. Is it GDP, if so I'll pay you 20 dollars to pay me 20 dollars and the GDP will rise by 40 dollars. What about cigarettes or alcohol, if we had more of those would it be better? Hockey cards, a television for each room, at what point is the more frivilous.

I have the impression Blair that you have started from a premise (anti-US, anti-corporation, anti-private sector) and then you have sought to find evidence or create arguments to support your opinion.

Unfortunately starting from a premise and then working backwards works for a lot of researchers these days (generally ones now paid by someone with an interest one way or the other). I'm thinking of the Fraser Institute as a glaring example.

This should rightly offend a scientific mind, but it is more often the case than not these days. At least it seems that way to me.

[Reverend Blair]

No, you are not. You are encouraging us to look at opinion columns from one highly biased and prejudiced website.

No, if you read what I wrote on this site in my posts to you, I am asking you to follow the links all the way back to their source so you can see where that opinion came from. That's why I told you to follow the links and the links within those links.

In summary, you are refusing to do your homework.

You use the term "compared to the richest 10%". Do you mean that it is best if society reduces the gap between rich and poor, even if it means that everyone has less?

I mean that the richest ten percent would likely do better if the poorest ten percent were not so far away from us. We get to pay for, because of the instability and poverty our wealth causes, a myriad of problems from the AIDS pandemic in Africa to the War on Terror to the War on drugs. We pay for those things with our freedoms, our tax money, and our humanity.

I have the impression Blair that you have started from a premise (anti-US, anti-corporation, anti-private sector) and then you have sought to find evidence or create arguments to support your opinion.

Short posts are free, but if you want me to write down my life story so you can understand where my premise started, how it changed, and exactly where I'm at right now, then you'll need to scribble out a sizable cheque. The evidence and arguments have shaped me, just as your evidence and arguments have shaped you.

Lastly...about my column. I appreciate the criticisms, but it is an opinion column. In a newspaper it would be on the Op-Ed page with Doonesbury. I offered it up for the links that I post with it. Vive is open site though. If you feel that it needs more opinions or viewpoints, then by all means write something and submit it. If you do not feel up to that, then do not criticise it as being,

one highly biased and prejudiced website.

[August1991]

We get to pay for, because of the instability and poverty our wealth causes, a myriad of problems from the AIDS pandemic in Africa to the War on Terror to the War on drugs. We pay for those things with our freedoms, our tax money, and our humanity.

Are you suggesting that we rich North Americans caused the AIDS epidemic? That we caused those rich Saudi guys to fly those planes into those buildings?

The war on drugs. Hmmm. That seems to be primarily a war in the US itself. And are you saying that I should be upset if the RCMP shuts down a crack house on my street?

"because of the instability and poverty our wealth causes" - Please elaborate.

Short posts are free, but if you want me to write down my life story so you can understand where my premise started...

I don't know what Kepler was doing in his life when he figured out his second law of planetary motion but I once worked my way through the proof. My point was about the so-called scientific method as a way to arrive at the "truth" - it largely amounts to being an intelligent skeptic willing to dispense with pre-conceived notions.

[Reverend Blair]

My point was about the so-called scientific method as a way to arrive at the "truth" - it largely amounts to being an intelligent skeptic willing to dispense with pre-conceived notions.

Yet you, without much evidence at all, are willing to conceive notions about me and my writing, where and how my viewpoints were developed, and whether I have a right to express those viewpoints.

I submit that when you realised I wrote a column that speaks out against imperialism of all sorts you decided that I'm anti-trade, anti-corporate, anti-US and probably that I eat granola and ride a bicycle to work at some emporium for avante garde art.

Are you suggesting that we rich North Americans caused the AIDS epidemic?

I'm stating that we have done too little too late and that corporate interests in the US have fought what we have done every step of the way.

That we caused those rich Saudi guys to fly those planes into those buildings?

I'm stating that foreign policies that make people increasingly desperate lead those people to follow zealots like bin Laden.

The war on drugs. Hmmm. That seems to be primarily a war in the US itself. And are you saying that I should be upset if the RCMP shuts down a crack house on my street?

The war on drugs is a complicated issue that has effects and causes in countries outside of the US and Canada. It stems from a lot of business deals (put the hemp indistry out of business for the cotton growers) and racism (all those dope-smokin' migrant workers. Those things come out of history.

The first drug war the west was involved in was Britain fighting to keep the opium coming, not to stop it. The present version of the war is being fought for the same basic reasons.

"because of the instability and poverty our wealth causes" - Please elaborate.

I thought I already had. Perhaps you should read the links.

[KrustyKidd]

I'm stating that foreign policies that make people increasingly desperate lead those people to follow zealots like bin Laden.

Time to move democracy into the Middle East then. As the most empowering form of Government on the Planet it seems to be the most effective at decreasing desparation in the population and hence, turn to terrorism. Acting in a democratic world, these people would better be able and suited to counter the ill effects of the US Administration.. Wouldn't you agree?

[Reverend Blair]

We can encourage democratic institutions, we can nurture democratic movements. We cannot install democracy by going in with guns blazing and installing puppet governments.

Do I think the Middle East would be better off with a democracy? Yes. Do I think we can successfully "move" democracy to the Middle East? No.

[August1991]

Yet you, without much evidence at all, are willing to conceive notions about me and my writing, where and how my viewpoints were developed, and whether I have a right to express those viewpoints.

You have every right to express your viewpoint. I simply had the impression that you have concluded your house is haunted by ghosts. You are now busy seeking evidence to support your conclusion. (I frankly don't know why you are doing this.) The scientific method would be to notice a noise in the attic and then wonder what caused it.

I'm stating that we have done too little too late and that corporate interests in the US have fought what we have done every step of the way.

Isn't that like blaming Alexander Fleming for influenza deaths because he didn't discover penicillin fast enough?

I'm stating that foreign policies that make people increasingly desperate lead those people to follow zealots like bin Laden.

Increasingly desperate? All 19 of those guys were well off. The 15 from Saudi Arabia were rich by your standards or mine. IME, most "desperate" people living in screwed up countries want to come to rich countries not to kill anyone but to have a better life.

The war on drugs is a complicated issue that has effects and causes in countries outside of the US and Canada. It stems from a lot of business deals (put the hemp indistry out of business for the cotton growers) and racism (all those dope-smokin' migrant workers. Those things come out of history.

I was expecting an explanation of how Medellin cartel wars impoverish villagers and you talk about hemp?

The first drug war the west was involved in was Britain fighting to keep the opium coming, not to stop it.

That was 150 years ago!

The present version of the war is being fought for the same basic reasons.

WTF? Efforts to stop cocaine production are like the Opium Wars?

I thought I already had. Perhaps you should read the links.

Provide a clickable link to a specific text. I'll read it.

We can encourage democratic institutions, we can nurture democratic movements. We cannot install democracy by going in with guns blazing and installing puppet governments.

It worked in Japan and Germany. The trend in South America, Asia and even Africa is toward some kind of democracy; that is, some kind of government which a leader can lose power other than by coup or death. This has happened through a variety of means.

The only Arab country where this sort of works is Lebanon. It is occupied by the Syrians. I don't see why it's not worth a try in Iraq.

Look, the Poles, Czechs and Romanians all gained their independance. They all know that this happened because of foreign events beyond their control.

[Hugo]

We cannot install democracy by going in with guns blazing...

Oh. Perhaps you should tell the Germans and the Japanese, they don't seem to have learnt that lesson.

Do I think we can successfully "move" democracy to the Middle East? No.

Why?

[KrustyKidd]

We can encourage democratic institutions, we can nurture democratic movements.

What are you, a war monger? The only way to encourage a corrupt despot like Saddam to give any democracy to the people of Iraq is to oust him by force. You radical violent bastard. I suppose you are all for US hegemony in industrial sectors as well. Typical of a someone who trys to puch for democracy in an area where there is nothing but a raw material. Oust the dictator by force and make the people sell their raw material.

Typical.

[Reverend Blair]

You have every right to express your viewpoint. I simply had the impression that you have concluded your house is haunted by ghosts. You are now busy seeking evidence to support your conclusion. (I frankly don't know why you are doing this.) The scientific method would be to notice a noise in the attic and then wonder what caused it.

I heard the noise along time ago. Everywhere I looked things were screwed up. When I looked for evidence it kept coming back to the greed of a very few. You may not be comfortable admitting it, but the evidence of our lifestyle is all around us, from environmental problems to Iraq to health problems right here at home.

Isn't that like blaming Alexander Fleming for influenza deaths because he didn't discover penicillin fast enough?

No. It is like blaming Fleming for letting people die if he could not profit from allowing them to live.

ncreasingly desperate? All 19 of those guys were well off.

If all of the terrorists are dead, and that simplistic statement implies that you think they are, why is the war on terrorism not over?

I was expecting an explanation of how Medellin cartel wars impoverish villagers and you talk about hemp?

No, I talk about business interests and prejudice encouraging governments to act in ways that cause harm to people.

That was 150 years ago!

Yes it was. Greed is still the driving force behind the drug wars all this time later. The rhetoric has changed, the problem remains the same.

Provide a clickable link to a specific text. I'll read it.

Quite frankly I've grown tired of providing links on this site. It seems that unless you quote the US government around here, the link is not valid.

It worked in Japan and Germany. The trend in South America, Asia and even Africa is toward some kind of democracy; that is, some kind of government which a leader can lose power other than by coup or death. This has happened through a variety of means.

Attempts at democracy in South America, Asia, and Africa have largely failed. Various governments, most notably the US, have supported undemocratic regimes, overthrown elected governments, fought dirty little secret wars, and just generally tried to control things in some very undemocratic ways.

Oh. Perhaps you should tell the Germans and the Japanese, they don't seem to have learnt that lesson.

Maybe you should read a little bit of history after World War II. Germany and Japan were the exception, not the rule.

Why?

Because you cannot bring about democracy by killing women and children, pretending that laws do not apply to you, and crushing freedom of the press while enriching your corporations and attempting to control who governs a country.

What are you, a war monger? The only way to encourage a corrupt despot like Saddam to give any democracy to the people of Iraq is to oust him by force. You radical violent bastard. I suppose you are all for US hegemony in industrial sectors as well. Typical of a someone who trys to puch for democracy in an area where there is nothing but a raw material. Oust the dictator by force and make the people sell their raw material.

Don't be an idiot, Krusty. You may excel at it, but it is nothing to aspire to.

[KrustyKidd]

Quite frankly I've grown tired of providing links on this site. It seems that unless you quote the US government around here, the link is not valid.

Yes, providing proof for an argument is so irritating. takes a lot out of a rant doesn't it? I suppose you are so much better than all of the rest of us, Black dog, Lonius included.

All it takes is to get a relatively unbiased source, any major News outlet will do. Link the page and quote the applicable text. Not much to it really. Don't make readers wade through pages and pages of crap to find out what you might have meant as they have other arguments to go onto and then move on yourself. Any of the right could quote News Max exclusibely but we know that it is a right wing publication and don't. Simply to avoid this problem. If it is a worth item then it will be mentioned in various news media. Myself, I would even accept the NYT if it was a minor event, them and another if it had more importence. To say you are tired of providing proof is a laugh. Judging by your previous attempts at using biased 'unofficial' 'no authority' 'not binding' sources I can see that you are probably more afraid of being seen as wrong rather than having to work too hard.

[Reverend Blair]

Perhaps I mis-spoke. There are people here who it is pointless to offer evidence to. I'm not tired of providing proof, I'm tired of people who will not read and discourage others from reading and thinking for themselves. I'm tired of people who will not accept evidence unless it is provided by a source they personally approve of.

If a reasonable person here, and I've seen quite a few, asks for a link I will provide it.

[KrustyKidd]

There you go Rev. Finally you make sense. I have been on this board for over a year and a half as have most of the others. We all know that proof is required and do not make an argument without it. If you have a belief and cannot prove it when proof is available then possibly it is a mistaken belief. Rarely do we ever encounter an idividual who does not provide it. We all seem to know what is and is not acceptable proof and work with that. In the absence of proof (ie none is attainable) we work with logic or a combinatin of the two. Law superceeds opinion in legal arguments (as our discussion is on the other thread) and morality superceeds law in religion and morality threads. Nowhere is there a valid point in forgoing links and quotes. If there was then we would be nothing more than a rant forum. And we all know what they are like.

[Lookie]

I only got to page three and I saw right thru Krusty! He changes his argument every time Black Dog rebuts him. He isn't worth your time Black Dog, he's trolling! As soon as you make light that you are wasting your time, he comes up with something else.

Krusty, you need to get a life, or actually don't, because if America keeps following the same path, it will have ruined all our lives as we once knew them.

[Reverend Blair]

You did not prove the law on the other thread. You gave your legal opinion based on your view. You would accept no evidence that contradicted it. You refused to partake in a wider argument, instead choosing to take the thread off topic.

I do not care how long you have been here, Krusty. I do care that you refuse to accept the links of others as valid unless it suits you. I do care that you took the time to go to another site in an attempt to discredit me. I, as I stated on the other thread (the one where you have so far refused to answer a direct question pertaining directly to the subject of the thread), will not play your silly little game. Others here are more reasonable and I will provide links for them, but there is no point in providing links for you.

August has shown a similar tendency, so my answer to August was the same.

[KrustyKidd]

I only got to page three and I saw right thru Krusty! He changes his argument every time Black Dog rebuts him. He isn't worth your time Black Dog, he's trolling! As soon as you make light that you are wasting your time, he comes up with something else.

Krusty, you need to get a life, or actually don't, because if America keeps following the same path, it will have ruined all our lives as we once knew them.

You think that the US shuld leave the Iraqis to kill themselves in a five or ten way civil war instead of electing whatever type of government they desire themselves Lookie? Why?

[KrustyKidd]

You did not prove the law on the other thread.  You gave your legal opinion based on your view.  You would accept no evidence that contradicted it.  You refused to partake in a wider argument, instead choosing to take the thread off topic. 

I do not care how long you have been here, Krusty.  I do care that you refuse to accept the links of others as valid unless it suits you.  I do care that you took the time to go to another site in an attempt to discredit me.  I, as I stated on the other thread (the one where you have so far refused to answer a direct question pertaining directly to the subject of the thread), will not play your silly little game.  Others here are more reasonable and I will provide links for them, but there is no point in providing links for you.

August has shown a similar tendency, so my answer to August was the same.

When you called me child and robot all bets were off. I also remember something about an antique record player or something when things were also not going your way. I also remember you reffereing us to this site as proof. Your opinion suddenly has become proof? As I said, I have been here for a year and a half and do not insult people like that. None of us do. Possibly, if this is the way you normally carry out discussions when they do not go your way then you you might find a better home elsewhere.

I addressed your thread concern on the US/Can thread.

[Lookie]

Wow, cuz THAT was my point! Your tactics won't cause me to go off on you. I think you LOVE arguing. I can't be bothered. Although the thread is HUGELY informative to me. So far, in my search for knowledge in this, I haven't come across a more informative debate, albeit facetious!

[KrustyKidd]

Lookie Post number 1

I only got to page three and I saw right thru Krusty! He changes his argument every time Black Dog rebuts him. He isn't worth your time Black Dog, he's trolling! As soon as you make light that you are wasting your time, he comes up with something else.

Krusty, you need to get a life, or actually don't, because if America keeps following the same path, it will have ruined all our lives as we once knew them.

KK respose

You think that the US shuld leave the Iraqis to kill themselves in a five or ten way civil war instead of electing whatever type of government they desire themselves Lookie? Why?

Lookie response

I think you LOVE arguing. I can't be bothered.

Too deep for you right? Glad you stopped by.