Bush In 30 Seconds

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Datheus

Eh. In the history of the Senate, how many people have changed sides?

 

Meh, that's kinda the way all debating is. You never really change anyones viewpoint, but I enjoy the mental...exertion of a good debate.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Datheus

Eh. In the history of the Senate, how many people have changed sides? It is much like talking to a brick wall, no matter what you're debating for. That's why that post there will probably be my last post in the Senate. Skinwalker is much better at it anyway.

 

One of the things I try to watch is the number of visitors that come to the Senate but don't post. Those of us posting have our positions and we are typically unlikely to change sides or concede (but it has happened), but there are a lot of members and guests to LF that visit, read here, and move on without posting. Sometimes I see these same members again and again (either by looking at the top of the forum at the "members browsing this forum" section or by looking at the "Who's Online" page).

 

What are they doing? They're reading and forming opinions based on what we discuss here.

 

Another advantage to the Senate discussions is that when the topics we discuss here come up in face-to-face discussions elswhere, I'm better prepared to argue my point.

 

I for one appreciate Hobgoblin, Lathain, rccar, lukeskywalker1, Cosmos Jack, and others with whom I've debated and disagreed with here on topics ranging from politics to war to religion to philosophy.

 

Without these guys and they're opposing views, it would be boring. On top of that, they give me pause to rethink my opinions on many occasions. While it's true I've seldom changed my mind about a topic in general, I've certainly reshaped many of my opinions based on information that guys like Lathain and lukeskywalker1 have provided.

 

I've been giving a bit of thought about the feelings that have emerged here in the Senate over the past year since Lathain's remarks about my attitude a few posts back. I must admit... I'm passionate about my views and eager to debate their merrits. But I hold no personal disdain toward those who disagree with me. In fact, I have high respect for those that can argue the counterpoint effectively. I'm looking at you Lathain Valtiel

 

I've been to a lot of other forums and seen the mess that goes on there in political debates! We are very civilized toward each other here by comparisson! That is a credit to the quality of members here at LucasForums and our general respect for each other. And that is why I participate here (LucasForums) more than any of the other 5 or 6 forums I visit. (although, sciforums has my devoted attention in little spurts through time).

 

This thread began in the Swamp. It pointed to the Bush in 30 seconds ads, which I had already seen. Many of these were very well made and I was impressed with not only the work that went into their production, but with the passion that these people felt (good or bad, they're involved).

 

That same passion emerges here, at LucasForums, among us. Fans of Star Wars. Think about it. As shallow as some of our discussions really are (the meritts of one Mandalorian skin over another...), we make time for real life. We involve ourselves.

 

Regardless of how you align yourselves politically, this is what's important. I have infinately more respect for the most right-wing or the most left-wing person than for the wingless. If you disagree with my politics, you have more value to society than if you have no opinion at all.

 

My hat's off to you all.

[rccar328]

You think we can afford to wage moral wars across the world? I would support a war if we were aiding their revolution

 

No, I don't think we can afford it - but I believe that we should do what we can. And we are aiding their revolution - the revolution that we didn't aid after the Gulf War. After the Gulf War, the first Bush administration told the people of Iraq that if they would rise up, we would help them win their freedom. When they rose up, the administration changed their mind and wasn't there for the Iraqi people. This is causing us problems today - many Iraqis don't trust us because we weren't there when they needed us last time.

The reason the Iraqi people haven't "thrown off their oppressive regime" is because Saddam knew it was coming and was perfectly willing to murder anyone who threatened to rise up against him.

 

 

He couldn't even hold onto Kuwait, let alone all of Europe!

 

Time for a history lesson: how did WW2 start? Hitler invaded Poland. Did anyone oppose him? Maybe the Polish, but the rest of the world didn't really know what to think, so they minded their own business. By the time they decided to react, Hitler had positioned himself to take over most of Europe.

The reason Hussien couldn't hold on to Kuwait is because the first Bush administration took a lesson from history and didn't let him continue in his imperialistic manuvering.

 

 

As much as I'd love to spread freedom around the world, it's just not feasible.

 

Maybe not, but we should do what we can.

 

 

Radical milliant Islam is far from the only threat to America.

 

True. This is why we aren't invading North Korea. The administration understands that North Korea poses a different kind of threat than Iraq or Afghanistan, and that is why we're taking a diplomatic approach.

 

 

Once again, that is not only radical Islam. And can you blame them? We arn't the most scrupulous country in the world. You're playing the Blame Game. You point the finger at radical Islam, saying they are trying to change us, but are we really doing anything different? Bush has mentioned time and time again how he wants to "reshape" the Middle East. How is that not forcing our culture on them?

 

No, we are not the most scrupulous country in the world. When a nation has freedom on the scale of America and its people tend to ignore moral values, it leads to exactly the kinds of things that radical Islamists hate us for. And the difference between our change and their change is that we want to give the Middle East the freedom to choose their own leaders and a structure of government that allows them to remove unjust leaders without having to rise up in arms and fight a bloody revolution, while they want to force their religious fundamentalism on the world, take away our freedom of choice, and hold us under the thumb of their oppressive version of Islam.

 

 

At least then it doesn't sound like we're trying to push our Western culture on them. Besides, it's not our land. We are a democratic country. Why don't we let the people of the Middle East decide for themselves when they reshape their own lands?

 

We aren't trying to push our culture on them, we're trying to change their form of government. As far as Iraq goes, after the United States sets up a democratic government, if the Iraqis want to scrap that and use a different system, more power to them - but like I said, we are giving them the power to choose how they want to be governed. How do you know that a majority of people in the Middle East don't want freedom? It's hard to express your opinions & beliefs when you're under the thumb of an oppressive regime who would kill someone before letting them lead a revolution.

 

 

Yeah, and the Roman Catholic Church really planned for the explosion of Protestantism. The unbelievably powerful Roman Catholic Church was just ever so pleased with Martin Luther nailing his grievances against a church door. Change happens.

 

Yes, change does happen. And America is helping the people of Iraq to change from oppression to freedom, just like Martin Luther helped people change from an oppressive Catholic church to a freer Protestant system. Once again, it goes back to the freedom to choose.

 

 

As far as the rest of your argument goes, I totally agree with you on the "First Amendment free zone." It is totally unconstitutional and is utterly wrong.

 

As for the Patriot Act, any free system must have a mix of liberty and safety. Any person who is not willing to give up some liberties in the interest of security is a great fool. Now, the Patriot Act could be a very dangerous thing if in the wrong hands. This is why it has a sunset clause. As for the current administration, John Ashcroft has followed all of the rules for oversight and is responsibly enforcing the Patriot Act. Whether the powers of the Patriot Act fall into the wrong hands is up to the people of America.

 

If detainees are being beaten, the perpetrators of those beatings should be thrown in prison. That's all there is to it. If someone is violating immigration laws, that does not make them a terrorist. They should be deported, but senseless beatings such as this are irresponsible and should be punished.

 

The banning of gay marriage is not about opposing religion on the homosexual community - it is about protecting the sanctity of the family. I have no problem with homosexuals. I have no problem if homosexual couples want to live together. I believe it is sin, but it is their choice. The function of the courts is to interpret the Constitution. If the President passes a Constitutional Amendment to ban homosexual marriage, it becomes the law of the land. If the people don't want it, it will fail.

 

The argument against homosexual marriage goes beyond religion. The moral degradation of our society can easily be paralleled with the desintigration of the family structure in America. Healthy families produce healthy children. The purpose of a ban of homosexual marriage is not to discriminate against homosexuals, but is instead meant to protect the family and to strengthen the moral values of our nation.

 

Too many people in our society believe that morals are relative, that it is wrong for anyone to judge another's behavior by any moral compass. This will lead to only one result: eventual moral anarchy that will inevitably lead to the downfall of our society. The Defense of Marriage Act and the proposed Constitutional Amendment exist to protece the people from the rise of moral relativism that will eventually lead to destruction.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

The banning of gay marriage is not about opposing religion on the homosexual community - it is about protecting the sanctity of the family.

 

Interesting where these topics run to, but here goes.

 

Saying that banning homosexual marriages is about protecting the sanctity of the family is complete and utter BULL. Who is to say that two men or two women cannot raise a kind and loving child with good morals and a sense of decency and purpose in this life? I personally think that a happily married Gay couple would be a LOT better parents than bickering heterosexuals who nobody even understands why they got married in the first place.

 

Secondly, it's not a person's fault if they are homosexuals, why should their choice of mate be cause to exempt them from the tax and other benefits a marriage licence offers?

 

Two men who love each other and are willing to raise their child together is a much a strong family as any man/woman marriage.

 

Banning Gay marriage is Bush's homophobia being presented in a logical way so nobody will think he's being a biggot.

[SkinWalker]

This is definately getting off-topic, but if there are those who are interested in pursuing the topic past this, I can split the thread and create a new one.

 

I will say that the idea that same-sex parents are detrimental to the breakdown of "family values" and the "family institution" seems to be an outright fallacy.

 

There is simply too much empirical evidence that demonstrates familial breakdown and degradation among heterosexual parents. Moreover, the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that children of same-sex parents have the same advantages or disadvantages as heterosexual parents.

 

The "family institution/unit" is one that is embraced by the religious right, moral majority, christian coalition, ... what-have-you.... the "perfect family unit" isn't necessarily the only way (or the best) to raise a family. There are so many other factors that have to be considered in examining familial relationships and effectiveness.

 

I don't think Bush is necessarily homophobic simply because he takes a stand that is counter to civil rights for homosexuals, but he definately reflects the position of most Republicans, which he would have to do in order to maintain his constituency.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

I don't think Bush is necessarily homophobic simply because he takes a stand that is counter to civil rights for homosexuals,

 

Perhaps I was a little harsh in my description, I just get a little mad is all

 

 

If anyone else wants to debate this I say split it. It's something I feel strong enough to debate, so there ya go.

[rccar328]

I understand what you're saying, but as a member of the "religious right," I'll just leave it with the fact that I believe what I believe due to my religious convictions - as a practicing Christian, I believe the Bible when it defines homosexuality as sin. I believe that this is a clearly defined, black-and-white issue of morality vs. immorality, and I believe that a truly healthy family relationship cannot be maintained under such openly sinful practices. I understand that other people see homosexuality as a gray area, or even as a clear-cut morally acceptable practice. I only see this debate de-evolving into mangled, pointless bickering, and as my views on this issue will not change, I respectfully withdraw from this debate.

 

It's been fun.

 

 

And a note to SkinWalker's post, as I do not engage in political debate often (I just don't have time to do the research that this kind of thing takes or the patience to deal with irresponsibly insulting people! Kudos to SkinWalker & Lexis-Nexis!), I found the level of civility in this forum really makes it a great place to debate. It becomes really easy to allow an argument to degenerate into personal attacks & name-calling, and too often people take the easy way out and start slinging baseless insults. The accountability in this forum is really great.

[Datheus]

Wow. I think this is the first debate that has ended this well... We've all agreed that we're never going to see eye to eye...

 

Perhaps we can agree on that, at least. The world is one big mystery and everyone thinks they have they have the answer.

 

(Figuratively speaking, of course.)

 

Ah well, all life seems to be is "What-If" and "Why-Not"...

 

I guess in closing, I have to back http://www.bushin30seconds.com perhaps only because I disagree with Bush on many topics. In fact, there are a couple of things in their videos I don't agree with.

 

To me, the Child's Play video--the one I believe they want to air during the Super Bowl-- is simply left-wing distortion. Even if Bush gets re-elected, no "child" will be paying off the deficit. However, America can't forget that we do indeed have one, regardless of whose fault.

 

Blargh.

 

Slaps his Zen self back into its hole, where it belongs.

 

-edit- Though I still strongly disagree on the Hitler-Hussein comparison. Hitler is just in a league of his own, man. In some ways, you've just got to respect it

 

(Yeah, a lot of people would eat me alive for using Hitler and respect in the same paragraph, but I'm not saying respect him because he murdered millions of people. Perhaps just allow space for what he did. Evil or not, his accomplishments are utterly awful. And in every sense of the word.)

 

He's untouchable. You're trying to compare a 3rd world country's army to the Nazi Germany's War Machine. I don't think you can honestly say that Hussein could have used Kuwait as a spring board to take over any significantly powerful country.

[SkinWalker]

After so many years and so many resolutions, with Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN, they should be thanking the US for sending troops in and giving their words meaning.

 

I must agree with this. There were a multitude of right reasons to hold Iraq and the Hussein regime accountable, but the reasons postulated by the Bush admin were the wrong ones. The U.S. probably didn't lean on the "UN Resolution" reason because then it would be expected to recognize all UN Resolutions. We have yet to enforce the UN Resolutions against Israel or even coerce them into compliance. Likewise with other nations that we view as allied.

 

If we see an evil growing in our world, we have a moral obligation to rid the world of that evil if the people of that nation cannot do it on their own.

 

Except by what standard do we gauge that evil? Whose definition of "evil" do we use? This is a term that is every bit as subjective as "terrorist," though most people believe they know the definition. And, in fact, they do. The problem is that one person's definition of "evil" may not be as inclusive or exclusive as another's.

 

Therefore, what right would we have in being so arrogant as to subject the world to our own culture's definition of "evil." Communism was considered evil by the American government for many years. So much so, that lists were created and punishments were applied to those who were merely accused of practicing witchcraft Communism. In it's pure form, Communism was a noble effort to provide for the population. Certainly not an "evil" purpose.

 

Saying that our action in Iraq cannot be justified because Iraq never did anything to us is like saying that America's action against Hitler in WW2 was unjustified because Hitler never did anything to the US. To say that we should have restricted our military operations in WW2 to Japan is folly –

 

Actually, the United States did stayout of WW2 nearly a full two years prior to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and Germany declaring war on the U.S. a few days later. But I must say, I'm not surprised to see the introduction of the "Hitler" card. It always pops up when debating the appropriateness of war with Iraq. Despite the fact that there are far more differences between the Hitler/Hussein regimes than similarities.

 

The fact that there are many nations where people are oppressed, raped, tortured and murdered by brutal dictatorial regimes is no justification for letting them continue their evil practices.

 

Agreed. But surely you realize that we cannot attack them all based solely on spurious evidence and because we feel like it. There are many ways to effect change within societies that have oppression. Moreover, what threshold does our government use to determine who gets attacked and who doesn't? This cannot be left simply up to the whims of whatever regime is in place in the U.S., otherwise we are only a random bully, slapping tyrants around where we see fit. Preemptively invading sovereign nations serves only to reinforce the reasons that our enemies have for opposing us.

 

In addition, the "Islamic militants" that you've so conveniently identified as our enemy do not have borders or armies or governments. Attacking countries we judge as "evil" provides all the recruitment and PR that these extremists need.

 

You say that politics are different from morals, but it is in those societies where politics and morals are separated that we see people like Hitler and Saddam emerge.

 

There is a difference between differentiating politics from morals and separating them. You're creating a straw man here.

 

We could restrict our military operations to the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, create perfectly logical reasons for doing so, and go on with our merry lives more worried about how much cash is in our wallets than the moral values that make our society great, but eventually radical Islam will strike.

 

Why should we think that military invasion of Iraq (or any other country) will eliminate this? Even if the entire region were democratized overnight, there would still exist the problem of Islamic militants. Concentration on the Al-Qaeda threat and homeland security (both of which the Bush admin appears to actually be lacking or failing in) would have been a better use of monetary and military capital. Maintaining relationships with our world neighbors would have been a better use of political capital.

 

There is no question about this - we have seen the resolve of Islamic militants. All you have to do is look at their goals.

 

What are their goals as you understand them?

 

Radical Islam does not hate the average American - they hate Hollywood. They hate the immorality that has ravaged our society through promiscuous sex, drugs, homosexuality, sexuality in movies and television, music. They do not hate our people, they hate our culture. They will not stop until every nation in the world has adopted their warped version of Islamic law.

 

This isn't the goal of radical Islam. What the Islamic terrorists like Al-Qaeda want is for the United States and its allies to cease involvement in Middle Eastern affairs. They want the United States to stop supporting what they view as "evil" tyranny of Israel and Zionist occupation of Palestine. They want us to pull our resources out of Saudi Arabia (which was a big demand of Al-Qaeda… and you know what? we pulled out).

 

Islamic terrorists don't seem generally interested in dominating the world or replacing Christianity. The spread of Islam hasn't occurred because of Muslim missionaries traveling to foreign lands and witnessing to the natives. It's generally occurred as a replacement to Christianity after Christianity failed the people who converted.

 

This is what it means to reshape the Middle East - to rid the region of the kind of radical Islam that wants to destroy America and all that it stands for (and all of the moral corruption it embodies) and replace it with a hard-line Islamic state.

 

That sounds surprisingly similar to the mission of fundamentalist Islam. Only they want to reshape the Middle East by ridding it of the influence of Western infidels. I'd like you to cite a reference to any Islamic fundamentalist that has called for the replacement of America with an Islamic state. Sure… Bin Laden has called for the downfall of America… I didn't miss that. What I'm asking about is where have you seen the plan for changing the religion?

 

Furthermore, to say that these Islamic states will become democratic when they're "damn good and ready" is to buy into a lie. Religious indoctrination has gone on in the Middle East for hundreds of years, and there is no end in sight. These people are living 400 years in the past, and their religious leaders will never allow change.

 

You know… I've been making that same argument about the United States. Religious indoctrination is the big threat to our country. Only instead of Islamic fundamentalists, we have Christian fundamentalists. In fact, there have been more terrorist attacks by Christian fundamentalists in the United States than by Islamic ones, though I'm not minimizing the impact of the single, biggest attack of 9/11. Christian fundamentalism impedes progress in many areas of our country, particularly in science and education. In addition, it influences foreign policy.

 

The question of democracy in the Middle East isn't one of religion. It's one of power and status among the elite. The government of Saudi Arabia, for instance, consists of anyone who is significantly wealthy. In Iran, the political leaders have used their religion as a means to maintain their wealth and status. The developments there among young people will push this country into democracy as they are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the restrictions imposed upon them by the government and state religion and the separation of the poor and wealthy.

 

In fact, there is a growing movement of atheism in Iran! I predict it will be among the first Middle Eastern countries to undergo an era of reform as Western values are embraced freely among the people. Here, we have an opportunity to allow a country to reshape itself, perhaps with some non-imposing guidance. And here, we have an example of why the West is hated by Islamic fundamentalists. Not because we threaten the religion so much as we threaten the status and power of Islamic leaders.

 

It has been shown that through out history, selfless devotion and faith among religious leadership takes a back seat to status and power of the leader. Logical positivism dictates that this is likely to still be a true expectation.

 

 

It's a simple choice, really - improve our world or let it go down the toilet of radical Islamicism.

 

This my friend is called a false dilemma. You are far oversimplifying the issue of terrorist aggression and U.S. foreign policy. In addition, you are confusing the correlation of Islamic fundamentalism with the causation of terrorism.

[Datheus]

Originally posted by rccar328

We aren't trying to push our culture on them, we're trying to change their form of government. As far as Iraq goes, after the United States sets up a democratic government, if the Iraqis want to scrap that and use a different system, more power to them - but like I said, we are giving them the power to choose how they want to be governed. How do you know that a majority of people in the Middle East don't want freedom? It's hard to express your opinions & beliefs when you're under the thumb of an oppressive regime who would kill someone before letting them lead a revolution.

As hard as I try... I just can't keep my big mouth shut.

 

That's a valid point. However (I don't feel like typing a big long essay)...

• Government is indeed part of a nation's culture.
  
• The theory is, the people allow themselves to be governed.
  
• If their regime was so oppressive (not to imply that it was not), then why did the Iraqis not choose death in revolt over death under tyranny?
  
• If they didn't want bad enough to die for, then chances are they will simply fall back into the old systems. No one truely appreciates their new system.
  
• 1783 America was able to say, "We built this land with our blood, sweat, and tears."
  
• In a New Iraq, what pride do they have? All they have to say is, "We built this land with the blood, sweat, and tears of the Americans." How is this a good way to begin a Democratic country in the Middle East?
  
• If the Iraqis want to scrap said system, what has this war been for? We ousted Hussein, but did not find the dangerous weapons he supposedly had. There is a high chance Iraq will fall back to its old ways. What will all those billions of dollars been for? What will the tears of 500 American families be for?