| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/24/2003 04:49:50 PM · #476 |
| It teaches them to think for themselves -- that when they hear the President (or anyone in power) say one thing and do another, s/he is not to be trusted as a civil, military, or moral leader, merely because they hold positions of authority, wealth, or power. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 07:39:52 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It teaches them to think for themselves -- that when they hear the President (or anyone in power) say one thing and do another, s/he is not to be trusted as a civil, military, or moral leader, merely because they hold positions of authority, wealth, or power. |
that is so irresponsible. kids don't understand politics. even doogie howser could not comprehend the idea of a president. come on now. you are so full of it it is coming out of your ears. the title of that stupid propaganda was "Why Dissent Will Survive". this implies that children are being brought up into dissent of their country, and you are passing it off calling it something that it's not. either you have problems reading the implications of things you read or you actually believe those things. i'm pretty sure you actually believe those things since you are so out there to begin with |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 08:03:47 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by achiral:
that is so irresponsible. kids don't understand politics. even doogie howser could not comprehend the idea of a president. come on now. you are so full of it it is coming out of your ears. the title of that stupid propaganda was "Why Dissent Will Survive". this implies that children are being brought up into dissent of their country, and you are passing it off calling it something that it's not. either you have problems reading the implications of things you read or you actually believe those things. i'm pretty sure you actually believe those things since you are so out there to begin with |
Kids don't undertand politics? That's a pretty broad generalisation. You're only 23 and you're arguing politics all day long in this forum. You've picked up enough in the past 5 years to become so sure of yourself, and yet you decry an 18-year old's ability to judge the morality of his/her country's actions. Rather odd...
It doesn't imply that kids are being brought up to propagate dissent...rather, that people who are brought up being taught morality, beign taught civil and social responsibility, etc. will always be at odds over a corporate and political structure that allows things like extensive corporate fraud (Enron, for example) and political irresponsibility such as the current situation in Iraq (we'd never advocate fighting in a schoolyard to combat bullying now, would we, no matter how severe).
Educated, civil people the world over can see that the Iraqi situation is being used as a political tool and as an economic cash grab. They've held that country down for years...again, it was only when no clear victory came out of Afghanistan that Bush switched to the old standby, Hussein. He hasn't done anything for 10 years, there was no proof of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons there, and now Bush has even gone against the UN, setting a dangerous and irreversible foreign policy precedent. These are not the actions of a morally responsible person. History will play this out as shameful imperialism. This is not a good example for our children.
James.
Message edited by author 2003-03-24 20:06:07. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 08:19:52 PM · #479 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by achiral:
that is so irresponsible. kids don't understand politics. even doogie howser could not comprehend the idea of a president. come on now. you are so full of it it is coming out of your ears. the title of that stupid propaganda was "Why Dissent Will Survive". this implies that children are being brought up into dissent of their country, and you are passing it off calling it something that it's not. either you have problems reading the implications of things you read or you actually believe those things. i'm pretty sure you actually believe those things since you are so out there to begin with |
Kids don't undertand politics? That's a pretty broad generalisation. You're only 23 and you're arguing politics all day long in this forum. You've picked up enough in the past 5 years to become so sure of yourself, and yet you decry an 18-year old's ability to judge the morality of his/her country's actions. Rather odd...
It doesn't imply that kids are being brought up to propagate dissent...rather, that people who are brought up being taught morality, beign taught civil and social responsibility, etc. will always be at odds over a corporate and political structure that allows things like extensive corporate fraud (Enron, for example) and political irresponsibility such as the current situation in Iraq (we'd never advocate fighting in a schoolyard to combat bullying now, would we, no matter how severe).
Educated, civil people the world over can see that the Iraqi situation is being used as a political tool and as an economic cash grab. They've held that country down for years...again, it was only when no clear victory came out of Afghanistan that Bush switched to the old standby, Hussein. He hasn't done anything for 10 years, there was no proof of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons there, and now Bush has even gone against the UN, setting a dangerous and irreversible foreign policy precedent. These are not the actions of a morally responsible person. History will play this out as shameful imperialism. This is not a good example for our children.
James. |
man you are so full of crap it is rediculous. and i'm not talking about 18 year olds the article said K-12, i said kids, you of course twist my words, to try and make me look silly but you are exposed for what you are.
if we wanted iraq to be a cash cow we wouldn't have put restrictions on oil from their country for the last 12 years. this country could be swimming in oil if we wanted it to be, but we aren't. yet you won't stop harping on pure bs that is fed to you through articles like the one generale brought forth.
bush isn't the first or last to go against UN policy and and the US isn't the only country that has done it either. what do you call basically kicking the inspectors out of iraq in 1998? sounds like saddam doesn't really want to play by the rules. if he truly had nothing to hide, as you so naively put it, this would have been over long ago, but he will not account for certain weapons when the UN has confronted him about them.
we did win decisively in afghanistan, you were probably too busy sipping your damn chai tea to realize that the taliban are no more and people there openly protest the war on Iraq, something that would never have been allowed under the taliban. but hey keep promoting your idiocy |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 08:20:27 PM · #480 |
archiral -- This is an interesting rant forum thread, but you must refrain from casting personal aspersions.
This post is in my role as site council member. None of the others have been... |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 08:23:58 PM · #481 |
| it's hard to argue 5 on 1 with people who are crazy |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 08:29:29 PM · #482 |
K-12 refers to Kindergarten through 12th grade, that is, your typical 17-18 year old high school senior, the ones being recruited to join "An Army Of One" where "everything you do affects people's lives" (I am quoting from a radio ad I heard today).
We all know that brainwashing is a tool of totalitarian, authoritarian regimes. I know there are "left-wing" totalitarians too, and I'm against them as well. But calling people names and impugning their character or qualifications is generally considered the weapon of last resort when logic, reason, and facts are lacking. I encourage you to expect better of yourself. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 08:30:02 PM · #483 |
Originally posted by achiral:
it's hard to argue 5 on 1 with people who are crazy |
Don't I know it! LOL |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 08:32:05 PM · #484 |
achiral,
You are not alone. I agree with most of what you have been arguing for the past week or so. I just gave up posting here because I'm sure minds are made up and nobody is going to change. You gave it a good fight though. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2003 08:34:24 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
K-12 refers to Kindergarten through 12th grade, that is, your typical 17-18 year old high school senior, the ones being recruited to join "An Army Of One" where "everything you do affects people's lives" (I am quoting from a radio ad I heard today).
We all know that brainwashing is a tool of totalitarian, authoritarian regimes. I know there are "left-wing" totalitarians too, and I'm against them as well. But calling people names and impugning their character or qualifications is generally considered the weapon of last resort when logic, reason, and facts are lacking. I encourage you to expect better of yourself. |
THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE WAS "WHY DISSENT WILL SURVIVE", THEN WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT SCHOOLCHILDREN. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT TEENAGERS. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE YOUNG CHILDREN WHO THE AUTHOR BELIEVES THROUGH THIS KIND OF TEACHING WILL BRING ABOUT NEW DISSENT BECAUSE OF THE TEACHINGS IN THE SCHOOLS. THAT IS THE IMPLICATION. I'M SORRY YOU REFUSE TO SEE THAT, BUT THEN AGAIN YOU LIKE TO ONLY PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE, NOT ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE WHOLE STORY |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 08:49:51 PM · #486 |
As I said, the title was added by the Chronicle's editor, not by the author of the letter nor myself. That is the editor's interpretation of the meaning of the letter. Please keep your references clear and DON"T SHOUT.
I also notice you still have not advanced any argument against teaching kids (of any age) that it is not good to bully, cheat, or lie, other than that such teachings somehow constitute "liberal brainwashing." I believe Pontius Pilate applied just about the same argument in the same context about 2000 years ago. Ain't progress wonderful? |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 09:57:37 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by achiral:
we did win decisively in afghanistan, you were probably too busy sipping your damn chai tea to realize that the taliban are no more and people there openly protest the war on Iraq, something that would never have been allowed under the taliban. but hey keep promoting your idiocy |
Uh... unfortunately the western media decided to forget about reporting on Afghanistan after Karzai was installed. There has NOT been a decisive victory. Ousting the Taliban just allowed the old warlords who ruled Afghanistan before them to take over most of the country. Outside Kabul there is chaos and anarchy, constant fighting, and the land has been yet again planted with fields of opium poppies (heroin trade is what has traditionally supported Afghan warlords). Many of the warlords are just as extreme in their oppression, abuse of women, etc. as the Taliban were, and the slaughter of racial minorities like the Pathans and the Hazaras is continuing.
If you don't believe me, read what the BBC has to say. This is the reason why a lot of people are dubious about how long Bush plans to stay and rebuild Iraq. If the Afghan pattern is followed, it'll be left to civil war and anarchy as soon as Saddam is out of there... |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 10:01:03 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by achiral:
man you are so full of crap it is rediculous. |
Well, I feel the same about you. You're living proof of your government's own propaganda and oversimplification of foreign affairs. I'm glad that you'll vehemently defent a $100 billion price tag to prop your president's private oil interests... |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 10:34:09 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by achiral:
we did win decisively in afghanistan, you were probably too busy sipping your damn chai tea to realize that the taliban are no more and people there openly protest the war on Iraq, something that would never have been allowed under the taliban. but hey keep promoting your idiocy |
Uh... unfortunately the western media decided to forget about reporting on Afghanistan after Karzai was installed. There has NOT been a decisive victory. Ousting the Taliban just allowed the old warlords who ruled Afghanistan before them to take over most of the country. Outside Kabul there is chaos and anarchy, constant fighting, and the land has been yet again planted with fields of opium poppies (heroin trade is what has traditionally supported Afghan warlords). Many of the warlords are just as extreme in their oppression, abuse of women, etc. as the Taliban were, and the slaughter of racial minorities like the Pathans and the Hazaras is continuing.
If you don't believe me, read what the BBC has to say. This is the reason why a lot of people are dubious about how long Bush plans to stay and rebuild Iraq. If the Afghan pattern is followed, it'll be left to civil war and anarchy as soon as Saddam is out of there... |
i give up with you, you only accept perfect solutions as solutions. you will never be satisfied, therefore it is pointless to argue with you. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 10:43:12 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by achiral:
man you are so full of crap it is rediculous. |
Well, I feel the same about you. You're living proof of your government's own propaganda and oversimplification of foreign affairs. I'm glad that you'll vehemently defent a $100 billion price tag to prop your president's private oil interests... |
i understand you hate america, and would like to politicize a war, but i'd rather not hear that bullcrap. your statements show just as much 'brainwashing' as you claim mine show. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 10:53:55 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As I said, the title was added by the Chronicle's editor, not by the author of the letter nor myself. That is the editor's interpretation of the meaning of the letter. Please keep your references clear and DON"T SHOUT.
I also notice you still have not advanced any argument against teaching kids (of any age) that it is not good to bully, cheat, or lie, other than that such teachings somehow constitute "liberal brainwashing." I believe Pontius Pilate applied just about the same argument in the same context about 2000 years ago. Ain't progress wonderful? |
i am just upset you put up an article with that kind of political agenda relating to education. honestly i have no problems with any of those things being taught but the way the author put it was that teachers were using such a system to be able to vicariously live through the children of the area by preaching the same political viewpoint as his. that's all...i was mad at the implication of what he was saying, not the actual teaching. but this just shows that none of you actually try to understand my viewpoint, it's like i'm talking a different language
|
|
|
|
03/24/2003 10:58:01 PM · #492 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by achiral:
man you are so full of crap it is rediculous. |
Well, I feel the same about you. You're living proof of your government's own propaganda and oversimplification of foreign affairs. I'm glad that you'll vehemently defent a $100 billion price tag to prop your president's private oil interests... |
i understand you hate america, and would like to politicize a war, but i'd rather not hear that bullcrap. your statements show just as much 'brainwashing' as you claim mine show. |
never said i hate america! i have friends and relatives there, love the place. hate bush. you can complain about an administration and still like the country (try it sometime...they're not one and the same). and it's not brainwashing...it's the opinion of the majority buddy. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 11:27:28 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by achiral:
man you are so full of crap it is rediculous. |
Well, I feel the same about you. You're living proof of your government's own propaganda and oversimplification of foreign affairs. I'm glad that you'll vehemently defent a $100 billion price tag to prop your president's private oil interests... |
i understand you hate america, and would like to politicize a war, but i'd rather not hear that bullcrap. your statements show just as much 'brainwashing' as you claim mine show. |
never said i hate america! i have friends and relatives there, love the place. hate bush. you can complain about an administration and still like the country (try it sometime...they're not one and the same). and it's not brainwashing...it's the opinion of the majority buddy. |
well i'm sorry you hate bush for some reason. i guess i don't see your point. besides pure media based hatred, i have no idea why you would hate him. god forbid anything happened to canada, the us would be the ones to protect you guys and be the first to aid you in the event of a disaster. i don't understand what bush has done to make canadians hate him.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2003 11:39:56 PM · #494 |
Originally posted by achiral:
i give up with you, you only accept perfect solutions as solutions. you will never be satisfied, therefore it is pointless to argue with you. |
Why should we settle for bad solutions rather than work for better ones? Bush's willingness to accept the situation as it is in Afghanistan only supports the argument that his real aims were not to destroy al-Qaeda or improve the lives of people in Afghanistan, but to get that gas pipeline built. And hey... guess what? It's being built. Surprise surprise.
This is not a "solution" to anything, it's a cynical exercise in self-interest that will cause more problems in the future. When you stop swallowing this whole idea that Bush wants to spread freedom around the world and realise that he just wants oil and gas resources secured, it makes so much more sense. No one who wanted to improve people's lives would go about it in this hamfisted way. And no one who has any understanding of the way world politics and history work would risk creating so much tension and uncertainty in exchange for oil and gas resources.
You really need to have a look at Project for a New American Century, the thinktank run by people like Wolfowitz, Perle, even Dick Cheney, and cohorts. This gives you a good idea of the REAL reasoning behind a lot of Bush's decisions right now, and also what you can expect after this war. |
|
|
|
03/24/2003 11:42:45 PM · #495 |
Originally posted by achiral:
it's hard to argue 5 on 1 with people who are crazy |
don't give up the fight, ach. i totally agree with you, but i'm not nearly as adept at getting my views across. you have my support, though.
my God bless those who fight to protect our freedom.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 12:20:09 AM · #496 |
Originally posted by achiral:
well i'm sorry you hate bush for some reason. i guess i don't see your point. besides pure media based hatred, i have no idea why you would hate him. god forbid anything happened to canada, the us would be the ones to protect you guys and be the first to aid you in the event of a disaster. i don't understand what bush has done to make canadians hate him. |
well one reason i hate him is that he's basically ensuring that the states will be the target of terror and violence for decades to come, all in the name of stabilising energy reserves. don't you understand that these actions will cause more terrorism?
as for 'anything happening to canada' this just ensures that even you can't make a distinction between
1. the 'war on terror' and
2. the war in iraq
nothing's going to happen to canada...are you referring to a terror attack? when the hell has iraq attacked the US? nobody's attacked canada either, and our refusal to participate in this war will help ensure that it never happens in the future. attack other countries = other countries attack you. don't you dare suggest that we will need 'defending'. the only time my people and your people ever had a military conflict, we burned your white house to the goddamn ground. i think we can handle ourselves. my country has built a fine reputation worldwide for its peacekeeping roles in numerous conflicts on several continents. you just don't hear about it, 'cause peace is less interesting for newsy types than blowing things up.
from your very own arguments the war on terror and the iraqi war have nothing to do with each other...you're suggesting that the iraqi regime has brutalised the iraqi people, and therefore we should take saddam out of the picture. well, he's been doing it before your first war in 1991...and guess what buddy, you ONLY protected kuwait's oil, and didn't go in and change the regime then, and waited around twiddling thumbs for what...12 years... before deciding that he was indeed a bad guy and you should go change things. well...this little tidbit coincided with a few interesting events in the states:
1. george w. bush
2. september 11th
3. severe economic woes
don't you find the timing a tad suspect? we wait 12 years before finally exercising our moral imperative. well done. yeah there's no other agenda here.
only the blind can't see that bush is using this war for economic ends! there's nothing more i can say. this argument will go around and around in cirlces until you can see that PEACE is the only answer. don't force war on a subcontinent and empower one man. there are so many other ways to deal with this, and the only ways that make sense are diplomatic ones. why make war to prevent war? that doesn't make any sense at all.
james.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 12:23:51 AM · #497 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by achiral:
well i'm sorry you hate bush for some reason. i guess i don't see your point. besides pure media based hatred, i have no idea why you would hate him. god forbid anything happened to canada, the us would be the ones to protect you guys and be the first to aid you in the event of a disaster. i don't understand what bush has done to make canadians hate him. |
well one reason i hate him is that he's basically ensuring that the states will be the target of terror and violence for decades to come, all in the name of stabilising energy reserves. don't you understand that these actions will cause more terrorism?
as for 'anything happening to canada' this just ensures that even you can't make a distinction between
1. the 'war on terror' and
2. the war in iraq
nothing's going to happen to canada...are you referring to a terror attack? when the hell has iraq attacked the US? nobody's attacked canada either, and our refusal to participate in this war will help ensure that it never happens in the future. attack other countries = other countries attack you. don't you dare suggest that we will need 'defending'. the only time my people and your people ever had a military conflict, we burned your white house to the goddamn ground. i think we can handle ourselves. my country has built a fine reputation worldwide for its peacekeeping roles in numerous conflicts on several continents. you just don't hear about it, 'cause peace is less interesting for newsy types than blowing things up.
from your very own arguments the war on terror and the iraqi war have nothing to do with each other...you're suggesting that the iraqi regime has brutalised the iraqi people, and therefore we should take saddam out of the picture. well, he's been doing it before your first war in 1991...and guess what buddy, you ONLY protected kuwait's oil, and didn't go in and change the regime then, and waited around twiddling thumbs for what...12 years... before deciding that he was indeed a bad guy and you should go change things. well...this little tidbit coincided with a few interesting events in the states:
1. george w. bush
2. september 11th
3. severe economic woes
don't you find the timing a tad suspect? we wait 12 years before finally exercising our moral imperative. well done. yeah there's no other agenda here.
only the blind can't see that bush is using this war for economic ends! there's nothing more i can say. this argument will go around and around in cirlces until you can see that PEACE is the only answer. don't force war on a subcontinent and empower one man. there are so many other ways to deal with this, and the only ways that make sense are diplomatic ones. why make war to prevent war? that doesn't make any sense at all.
james. |
i hope everyone on the site reads this lunacy written above by jimmy
i was talking about any disaster. who knows. i'm saying regardless you are an ally of the US i will support any measure to protect canada. i don't hate canadians, i just don't understand ones like you. that's great you believe peace is the only way. which is why you haven't and won't have any impact on world problems. sadly war is a reality whether any of you choose to believe it. you can't just end war. it doesn't work. not everyone will agree at the same time. it's impossible to enforce that kind of treaty. iraq invaded kuwait...so you're saying the canadian position was let iraq impose imperialism on kuwait, but when the us goes to enfore the sovereignty of other nations that are at risk of being taken over, it is because of oil. you're right canada, we should have just said go ahead, saddam, we want peace, even though you will never be a peacemaker, we'll go ahead and let you take other countries over.
your oil theory has yet to be proven. of course more oil is going to flow out of iraq after the war...there have been strict sanctions on oil supplies for 12 years. we didn't gain oil by saving kuwait. it hasn't been a primary objective as stated by the administration. of course this means i have been brainwashed and all the internet sites provide truth. i'm sorry for my acceptance of brainwashing.
you really are an amazing person jimmy. i only hope that you stop being such a fascist and try to see things from both sides.
one more thing, i do think there is a connection to terrorism between iraq and palestinian suicide bombers. at least tens of thousands of dollars were given by iraq to families of suicide bombers. don't tell me that that kind of money wouldn't entice more poor palestians to do the same. his hands aren't clean in terms of terrorism
Message edited by author 2003-03-25 00:43:13. |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 01:44:56 AM · #498 |
Sure, state-sanctioned terrorism abounds in high political places. American support for Israeli terrorism is just about the best parallel there is to Iraqi support for Palestinian terrorism. It's as close as we're going to get because the disparity in military and economic support is quite obscene. As we should already be aware, these are but two examples.
Perhaps, achiral, your point is encompassed by the belief in the inapplicability of non-violent solutions where non-violence is not honoured or respected.
Point: German students distributing anti-Nazi pamphlets promoting non-violent resistance during World War II were summarily executed.
Counter-point: Ghandi was able to change a nation through the persistent (and consistent) promotion of non-violent civil disobedience.
Moot point: Had enough Germans used non-violence means to end fascist rule in Germany, would it have been successful? You can accuse a few of treason, but you cannot accuse all (or most of) your citizens of it.
Problem #1: Access to information is limited in many parts of Iraq so non-violent civil disobedience is difficult, if not impossible, to organize. This did not seem to stop Ghandi (but he was relatively free to roam about spreading the word).
Problem #2: Western history may not be particularly applicable to the situation in Iraq. This does not seem to stop us from making sweeping generalizations and simplifying the problem (much like my post).
Ultimate problem: The imaginary lines we use as borders keep us from recognizing or identifying with the victimhood of others in the world. Arguably, it is easier to kill for a cause than it is to die for it. Suppose now, that instead of soldiers equipped with guns, the world were to send in peacekeepers, equipped with banners, pamphlets, et cetera, encouraging non-violence, civil disobedience, and the ousting of Hussein (or insert-name-here). This is not very imperialistic, but if your currency is human life and world peace, it has real economic benefit.
Tyranny is always in the hands of a few, but it's primary weapon, fear, gives it control over the many.
--
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
- Gandhi |
|
|
|
03/25/2003 02:04:52 AM · #499 |
I'm not afraid to say it, but uh... I ain't read a single post in this thread. But I think it has something to do with the war in Iraq.
This goes out to all the tree-huggin hippies out there...
A little reality check for ya!
Before you click, you must be ok with naughty words and an extreme view of Pro-War.
Thank you and please drive through.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2003 02:09:36 AM · #500 |
Originally posted by bamaster:
I'm not afraid to say it, but uh... I ain't read a single post in this thread. But I think it has something to do with the war in Iraq.
This goes out to all the tree-huggin hippies out there...
A little reality check for ya!
Before you click, you must be ok with naughty words and an extreme view of Pro-War.
Thank you and please drive through. |
as always BA, you rock! :o) great article!
|
|
