Basically, I'm embarrassed that this guy can clearly articulate what the Mainstream Media fails to do. I finally know who the Suunis and the Shiites are and who is backing whom and what they are trying to do, why we don't invade Iran, and what history teaches us about where we failed in Vietnam. And this could have been said without arguing for who we should support (or rather not support) in today's election.
So what do you suppose the author reads? The only source he cites is Commentary magazine
Tarquinn fucked around with this message on 11-07-2006 at 12:57 PM.
This is the first article I have ever read that made me feel like bush was doing the right thing, without being some slanted political piece.
quote:
Quoth Blindy.:
Then how fitting is it, that the piece was written by a fantasy writer?
That's just stupid.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
No, seriously, where are they? There's one fleeting reference to a magazine, but where all the indirect references to experts in this particular field? You know, "So-and-so said X, so Y." Does he claim to be himself a qualified expert? If so, what are his qualifications, and why does he not point them out?
Sorry, he makes too many assumptions that aren't obviously true. If there was a bibliography attached to this, I'd take it much more seriously.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
Reading that, I thought the same thing over and over: where are his sources?No, seriously, where are they? There's one fleeting reference to a magazine, but where all the indirect references to experts in this particular field? You know, "So-and-so said X, so Y." Does he claim to be himself a qualified expert? If so, what are his qualifications, and why does he not point them out?
Sorry, he makes too many assumptions that aren't obviously true. If there was a bibliography attached to this, I'd take it much more seriously.
Since when do opinion pieces need a bibliography? Seems like a pretty shallow reason to discard an argument. . .and when was the last time you saw anything like this cite sources like it was a college paper? It's simply not traditional in the genre unless, like he did, he is citing something specific.
The thing is, can you disagree with the logic or disprove the assertions? Last I checked, that's how one conducts debate. "Oho! Not only are you a science fiction writer, but you haven't quoted any sources--therefore you are not to be believed and I have no obligation to examine the merits of your argument!" simply isn't logical.
Find fault with the arguments--it's a subject on which reasonable people can disagree--all you want, but let's at least attempt to stay logical ourselves. Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 11-07-2006 at 03:10 PM.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
So if we get one of the leading Democrats as our new President in 2009, we'll be on the road to pusillanimous withdrawal and the resulting chaos in the world.
This is exactly what I would expect from a writer. The article oversimplifies damn near everything...
- Iran will fix itself somehow
- We dont have to worry about North Korea
- This war is as simple as win/lose
Not to mention "the world is doomed you don't elect X party into power!" is a tired and boring read.
quote:
Reynar startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
This is exactly what I would expect from a writer. The article oversimplifies damn near everything...- Iran will fix itself somehow
- We dont have to worry about North Korea
- This war is as simple as win/loseNot to mention "the world is doomed you don't elect X party into power!" is a tired and boring read.
You didn't read very closely, if that's all you got out of it. 
This reminds me of the legal saying that if you haven't got the evidence on your side, argue the law instead; instead of actually examining arguments, everyone's looking for tangents to attack. He's a writer! He didn't cite sources! He didn't give a detailed account of how the future will come to be, with names and dates! Ono!
Jeebus, people, learn to think. It's a tightly-woven argument, but there are several points one could argue. If one has the balls to stay on subject instead of slinging emotional drivel as if it had logical meaning.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
R Reasoning? We are the greatest COuntry. That is all.
What's suspect, you say? Well, straight off the top of my dome...
quote:
If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.
Are there? How many is that? Also, can we assume that the Democrats will be as lock-step with their policy as the Republicans have been? What if they don't control the Senate, too? Is there historical precedent for such a thing, wherein the political climate and makeup was satisfactorily similar to our own present one? There needs to be more here, plain and simple. We can't accept that the only possible outcome of Democrats winning is horrendous defeat. We could accept strong probabilities, given supporting evidence. We have neither.
quote:
Another charge against the Bush administration's conduct of the war is that they are engaged in the hopeless task of "nation-building." And this is true -- except for the word "hopeless."But what is the alternative? I've heard several, each more disastrous and impossible and even shameful than the one before.
Why do we accept that there is no alternative? What are these disastrous alternatives? Again, it rests on his authority alone to be an expert judge of the situation, because he cites no examples.
Other questionable areas are in his reasoning, such as this:
quote:
No matter which miserable dictatorship we moved against after the Taliban -- and we had no choice but to keep moving on if we were to eradicate the grave danger we faced (and face) -- we would have faced the same problem in Syria or Iraq or Sudan that we had in Afghanistan: We had to establish order in a nation that had never actually become a nation.
In all fairness, this one isn't too bad, but it's cut short. If we had to move on, why did we move on before we finished the job in Afghanistan? If we had to do these things, does it not follow that we must do them correctly, or we have failed?
Now, this is real telling:
quote:
The boundaries on the ground in the Middle East were not formed in the traditional way -- by compromise or war. Instead, European powers drew lines that pleased their fancy. The lines did not create the hatreds that plague the region, but they guaranteed that traditional enemies would have to face each other within these boundaries.
And here he describes the very thing that makes our nation building in the ME exceedingly difficult: we're trying to get ancient tribal enemies to form a modern, stable, secular democracy.
It hearkens back to that article I posted last week about why Arabs lose wars; when faced from threats from without, they don't unify across tribes, and within their own army, there is a massive failure t'communicate between officer and soldier.
In fact, this exposes yet another flaw in the overall piece; his pseudo-apocalyptic vision of the entire Muslim world uniting against us. That will never happen, for the reason that religion is strong, but blood is stronger. Tribalism is, to this day, and again, as was mentioned in the article I posted previously, incredibly important to Arab culture. This inertia is huge, and despite what we think, such things are not easily changed. And yet, he sees fit to make no mention of what influence culture will have on regional politics, only that the Islamic puritanism must override it. How can we ignore such things if they predate Islam and their influence is still felt today, as evidenced by the sectarian violence in Iraq? And yet, he dismisses it as mere flavoring to the various types of Islamic governments which will arise and unite against us.
Point being, then, that he fails to take into account all that's going on over there, thus the conclusions reached are unlikely to be correct. It's not impossible, certainly, but it is unlikely.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Nobody really understood why Azakias wrote:
Haha. This was on Rush Limbaugh's show yesterday afternoon.
Omg Rush Limbaugh is fat and stupid!
[small]I need to subscribe to his websight so I can get his podcasts, never have time to listen to him during the day.[/small
quote:
Tarquinn attempted to be funny by writing:
Orson Scott Card? The famous sci-fi author? Interesting what he says in that article and about his party. Heard only good things about him.
I'll get back to the article when I have some more time, but you really need to hear something bad about Orson Scott Card in general.
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm
quote:
Azakias stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Haha. This was on Rush Limbaugh's show yesterday afternoon.
Just please assure me that you don't listen to Sean Hannity
Rush is acceptable if you agree with his politics, but Sean is a douche
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Mod gently hums:
I'll get back to the article when I have some more time, but you really need to hear something bad about Orson Scott Card in general.http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm
That's not something bad about Card--whatever gave you that idea? It's not even that well argued in philosophical/moral terms.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Kegwen had this to say about Duck Tales:
Just please assure me that you don't listen to Sean HannityRush is acceptable if you agree with his politics, but Sean is a douche
The only time I listen to Hannity (or Savage, for that matter) is when I need a good laugh.
I listen to Rush, but disagree with a lot of his shit. But he makes more sense than Hannity.
My favorite to listen to is Neal Bortz. He's damn funny.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Kegwen booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Just please assure me that you don't listen to Sean HannityRush is acceptable if you agree with his politics, but Sean is a douche
Have you ever listened to Hannity?
I listen to around 6 shows with quasi-regularity, 3 being strictly conservative, and Hannity is one of the most reasonable, moderate, and polite personalities out of all of them.
What exactly did he say that pissed you off so bad?
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Have you ever listened to Hannity?I listen to around 6 shows with quasi-regularity, 3 being strictly conservative, and Hannity is one of the most reasonable, moderate, and polite personalities out of all of them.
What exactly did he say that pissed you off so bad?
I listened to him and Rush for over a year, actually.
Anyone who rides the family values/protect the children political train is going to get under my skin pretty quickly, though, so perhaps that was all there was to it.
I can't think of any one memorable thing he's said that pissed me off. However, there are some political viewpoints and attitudes that will make me dislike someone as a person if they're the only thing I know about them. Guess that's not a good way to do things, but that's how it seems to be for me! Kegwen fucked around with this message on 11-09-2006 at 01:33 PM.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Naimah booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Shawns constant 'You're a great American because you listen to my show' pisses me off to no end. I'm all for patriotism but Hannity takes it a little bit too far.
That's a little tongue-in-cheek actually, sorta like how Rush is always putting on the show of being a total pompous ass. He only does it to annoy people.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Knight Rider:
Have you ever listened to Hannity?I listen to around 6 shows with quasi-regularity, 3 being strictly conservative, and Hannity is one of the most reasonable, moderate, and polite personalities out of all of them.
What exactly did he say that pissed you off so bad?
Hannity is the most moderate? 
Have you ever considered taking in a wider, more reasonable variety of material? Just because someone is a moderate or a liberal doesn't mean they're wrong. I mean, you say you can accept any rational argument, but you don't even attempt to understand opposing viewpoints, which makes you look like a radical.
It's kind of like saying that one goes to Free Republic to debate.
