Emotions or Facts?

[peapod]

I would agree with you said. My preception is that weapons was just an excuse to invade another country...why? their natural resources of course.

 

[I think not]

I'll give you an example of what you say Ocean.

Fact: The President of the US said, Saddam Hussein has WMD's and the primary reason for going to war.

Fact: No WMD's have been found to date.

Fact: The President stated that WMD's may have been smuggled out of Iraq (I am saying that he said it is fact, not what he says)

Fact: The left-wing says WMD's smuggled out of Iraq is another neo-con lie

Fact: The UN confirms WMD's have been smuggled out of Iraq.

So what will prevail here? Your emotions or facts?

I thought the primary reason was to make sure he didn't have any? The devil is in the details isn't it.

The primary reason is that he already had WMD's.

Depends on how you look at it. Off topic anyway.

No No, not off topic at all, thats part of the point. Perceptions.

Yes, perceptions. I perceive the war to be about other things and do not dwell on the WMD issue.

Alright then. Case and point, its all about perceptions and emotions. An abundance of facts can be presented, everyone accepts what suits their pre-conceptions

 

[I think not]

Fact: The UN confirms WMD's have been smuggled out of Iraq.

the qualifier is : the detail and how this was presented. We do NOT have enough facts.............but curious to see, how this can continue to be twisted. There was no question about : Did he have them?? Furthermore no one specified what type he was supposed to have. No one specified where they were transplanted to. Too much evasiveness. A lawyer would sure have fun with this.........and this is probably why it was formatted this way. So the question remains.....did he LIE????or did he just spin the information to make it lean a certain way ? Don't think this is as black and white as some would like it to be. Insufficient accurate information.........insufficient facts. But as a rule......FACTS........supported by VALID evidence must take center stage. Yes, SH had them..........at one time. So the time frame is manipulated with a black white question.

We just finished going over that the UN weapons inspectors stated WMD's were smuggled out of Iraq. Before, during and after the war. The line Bush was pushing for is that he had WMD's hence he was a threat to the region, to the US and the world. So which part are we arguing on?

 

[Said1]

Alright then. Case and point, its all about perceptions and emotions. An abundance of facts can be presented, everyone accepts what suits their pre-conceptions

Like I said, for the most part I do look at facts. In the case of Iraq, there isn't a lot of fact out there that suites my perceptions, just me own tinfoil hat theorys.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

I'll give you an example of what you say Ocean.

Fact: The President of the US said, Saddam Hussein has WMD's and the primary reason for going to war.

Fact: No WMD's have been found to date.

Fact: The President stated that WMD's may have been smuggled out of Iraq (I am saying that he said it is fact, not what he says)

Fact: The left-wing says WMD's smuggled out of Iraq is another neo-con lie

Fact: The UN confirms WMD's have been smuggled out of Iraq.

So what will prevail here? Your emotions or facts?

I thought the primary reason was to make sure he didn't have any? The devil is in the details isn't it.

The primary reason is that he already had WMD's.

Depends on how you look at it. Off topic anyway.

No No, not off topic at all, thats part of the point. Perceptions.

Yes, perceptions. I perceive the war to be about other things and do not dwell on the WMD issue.

Alright then. Case and point, its all about perceptions and emotions. An abundance of facts can be presented, everyone accepts what suits their pre-conceptions

Don't think it is fair to generalize this way.......many people change their thinking as new (valid) data comes in.

for eg: don't think many had the preconception that bush was a lier. Evidence though , has pointed in that direction...

It depends on who is fixated in their thinking -and will not alter their "beliefs" or preconceptions- and who is receptive to new data as it comes in. Situation in constant state of flux.

 

[Said1]

I would agree with you said. My preception is that weapons was just an excuse to invade another country...why? their natural resources of course.

In the long run, I think oil is a small part of a much bigger scenario. I think Saddam's sole purpose for being left in power were the same reasons he was supported during the Iran-Iraq war. For the most part, people were making money hand over fist off of Iraq, all under the watchful eye of the UN. I really think the threat of civil war within Iraq was serious, and would have catastrophic effects in the ME had that happened.

 

[I think not]

Don't think it is fair to generalize this way.......many people change their thinking as new (valid) data comes in.

for eg: don't think many had the preconception that bush was a lier. Evidence though , has pointed in that direction...

It depends on who is fixated in their thinking -and will not alter their "beliefs" or preconceptions- and who is receptive to new data as it comes in. Situation in constant state of flux.

I know of no one who changes their views as data comes in unless it fits their pre-conceptions. If that were the case, Bush went to war for reasons of WMD's and the UN weapons inspectors confirmed they were smuggled out.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Don't think it is fair to generalize this way.......many people change their thinking as new (valid) data comes in.

for eg: don't think many had the preconception that bush was a lier. Evidence though , has pointed in that direction...

It depends on who is fixated in their thinking -and will not alter their "beliefs" or preconceptions- and who is receptive to new data as it comes in. Situation in constant state of flux.

I know of no one who changes their views as data comes in unless it fits their pre-conceptions. If that were the case, Bush went to war for reasons of WMD's and the UN weapons inspectors confirmed they were smuggled out.

:lol:


well, maybe you just don't know many people.......or don't know those that do change their opinions as new data comes in.

Don't scientists change their theories as new theories evolve. ???

Don't medical people change their methods of diagnosing problems (for eg) when new data /research indicates new information???

Both these fields REQUIRE that no preconcieved ideas factor in. Both require an open and receptive mind.

and.........IF this is what you personally "believe" then that is your preconception. :wink:

heck.......just listen to bush (sorry Cosmos- that dirty word again;-)........and try to follow all his "rationale" for the invasion of Iraq. It changed almost from day to day. from the pre-conception of WMD.......to the preconception that he was bringing "freedom" into a country that did not ask him to. ..........and ad infinitum. No wonder the populace is so confused. What is propaganda??? Preconceived rhetoric that has emotional appeal to many. But not everyone falls for it.

 

[I think not]

But not everyone falls for it.

Everyone falls for what they believe in. When your confusing science with the comments I made in the beginning of this thread, then you're way off topic.

This is about propaganda and how people accept it based on their pre-conceptions and emotions. Just in this thread alone, it has been mentioned that Iraq was about, WMD's, Oil, Making Money, Security and Democracy. What you believe to be true someone else believes the opposite, you cannot both be correct. You understand the point I'm making?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

back to the WMD issue. IF he had them........don't you think he would have used them when the US invaded??? He was not about to surrender Iraq to the US without a damned good fight.----and would have used everything he had.


of course.......the other question is: IF he really had what the USG claimed he had.......would the US have been so gung ho to invade.......considering the disastrous consequences???

 

[I think not]

We just finished agreeing that the UN weapons inspectors acknowledged WMD's being smuggled before, during and after the war. Now we are playing with IF's again?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

This is about propaganda and how people accept it based on their pre-conceptions and emotions.

again......this is a generalization. One size does not fit all.


Now, if one were to say.... (generalize) that many see propaganda for what it is.........and have a preconceived notion not to buy into it ,look for the flaws..........then that might qualify as a preconception based on the emotion of being dissed off with the crap that propaganda tends to spew out. In fact one could go with the preconceived idea that all propaganda is an insult to ones intelligence.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

We just finished agreeing that the UN weapons inspectors acknowledged WMD's being smuggled before, during and after the war. Now we are playing with IF's again?

sorry, did not "agree" on any detail of this.

the FACT is that no one knows HOW / /WHEN these so called WMD were smuggled out ........or if they were. More data is needed , then some general statement .

what we do agree on is that emotions over rule logic /reason in many situations.

 

[I think not]

We just finished agreeing that the UN weapons inspectors acknowledged WMD's being smuggled before, during and after the war. Now we are playing with IF's again?

sorry, did not "agree" on any detail of this.

the FACT is that no one knows HOW / /WHEN these so called WMD were smuggled out ........or if they were. More data is needed , then some general statement .

what we do agree on is that emotions over rule logic /reason in many situations.

Well you said earlier that you took the FACTS instead of EMOTIONS.

So if the UN acknoweldges this what more FACTS do you need?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1159171/posts

 

[Jay]

"This is the biggest news story of 2004 so far. Yet you haven't heard about it, have you?

You probably haven't heard about Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin either -- a socialist and no friend of America. Addressing a group of 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal last month, Martin stated bluntly that terrorists have acquired WMDs from Saddam. “The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Huseein had, we don't know where they are…. [T]errorists have access to all of them,” the Canadian premier warned. "



Wow, I didn't know this....

 

[Ocean Breeze]

We just finished agreeing that the UN weapons inspectors acknowledged WMD's being smuggled before, during and after the war. Now we are playing with IF's again?

sorry, did not "agree" on any detail of this.

the FACT is that no one knows HOW / /WHEN these so called WMD were smuggled out ........or if they were. More data is needed , then some general statement .

what we do agree on is that emotions over rule logic /reason in many situations.

Well you said earlier that you took the FACTS instead of EMOTIONS.

So if the UN acknoweldges this what more FACTS do you need?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1159171/posts

a lot more FACTS than the article presents. The article is biased to begin with. Ergo , it loses credibility.

at some point REASON must prevail. Not much in that article is "reasonable"

 

[I think not]

We just finished agreeing that the UN weapons inspectors acknowledged WMD's being smuggled before, during and after the war. Now we are playing with IF's again?

sorry, did not "agree" on any detail of this.

the FACT is that no one knows HOW / /WHEN these so called WMD were smuggled out ........or if they were. More data is needed , then some general statement .

what we do agree on is that emotions over rule logic /reason in many situations.

Well you said earlier that you took the FACTS instead of EMOTIONS.

So if the UN acknoweldges this what more FACTS do you need?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1159171/posts

a lot more FACTS than the article presents. The article is biased to begin with. Ergo , it loses credibility.

at some point REASON must prevail. Not much in that article is "reasonable"

Thank you Ocean, you just made my entire point. If I linked a site that said Bush lied about WMD's that last thing you would do is call it biased. You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. This is where everyone gets their brain a tad washed, and I am most certainly not excluding myself.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: Emotions or Facts?

"This is the biggest news story of 2004 so far. Yet you haven't heard about it, have you?

You probably haven't heard about Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin either -- a socialist and no friend of America. Addressing a group of 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal last month, Martin stated bluntly that terrorists have acquired WMDs from Saddam. “The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Huseein had, we don't know where they are…. [T]errorists have access to all of them,” the Canadian premier warned. "


Martin said THAT????

either he is a total fool..........or the article is just trash. ( vote for the latter)



Wow, I didn't know this....

 

[Ocean Breeze]

We just finished agreeing that the UN weapons inspectors acknowledged WMD's being smuggled before, during and after the war. Now we are playing with IF's again?

sorry, did not "agree" on any detail of this.

the FACT is that no one knows HOW / /WHEN these so called WMD were smuggled out ........or if they were. More data is needed , then some general statement .

what we do agree on is that emotions over rule logic /reason in many situations.

Well you said earlier that you took the FACTS instead of EMOTIONS.

So if the UN acknoweldges this what more FACTS do you need?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1159171/posts

a lot more FACTS than the article presents. The article is biased to begin with. Ergo , it loses credibility.

at some point REASON must prevail. Not much in that article is "reasonable"

Thank you Ocean, you just made my entire point. If I linked a site that said Bush lied about WMD's that last thing you would do is call it biased. You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. This is where everyone gets their brain a tad washed, and I am most certainly not excluding myself.

sorry, but please don't take liberties as to speaking for me. You don't know me........and are going with your own preconceived ideas based on some postings here. And this alone is presumptuous and arrogant. (FACT) Furthermore.......I am not the topic , so if you are trying to incite an emotional reaction......don't bother. Play fair on here. Manipulative word games belong on the humor thread. You brought up a topic that is quite abstract and requires thought and certain connotations..........depth of thought. Lets do try to stay focussed...........shall we??? :?

 

[I think not]

We just finished agreeing that the UN weapons inspectors acknowledged WMD's being smuggled before, during and after the war. Now we are playing with IF's again?

sorry, did not "agree" on any detail of this.

the FACT is that no one knows HOW / /WHEN these so called WMD were smuggled out ........or if they were. More data is needed , then some general statement .

what we do agree on is that emotions over rule logic /reason in many situations.

Well you said earlier that you took the FACTS instead of EMOTIONS.

So if the UN acknoweldges this what more FACTS do you need?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1159171/posts

a lot more FACTS than the article presents. The article is biased to begin with. Ergo , it loses credibility.

at some point REASON must prevail. Not much in that article is "reasonable"

Thank you Ocean, you just made my entire point. If I linked a site that said Bush lied about WMD's that last thing you would do is call it biased. You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. This is where everyone gets their brain a tad washed, and I am most certainly not excluding myself.

sorry, but please don't take liberties as to speaking for me. You don't know me........and are going with your own preconceived ideas based on some postings here. And this alone is presumptuous and arrogant. (FACT) Furthermore.......I am not the topic , so if you are trying to incite an emotional reaction......don't bother. Play fair on here. Manipulative word games belong on the humor thread. You brought up a topic that is quite abstract and requires thought and certain connotations..........depth of thought. Lets do try to stay focussed...........shall we??? :?

It isn't abstract at all and requires very little work to comprehend. Everyone is biased and judges based on pre-conceptions and emotions. Thats all there is to it. And you proved my point. It doesn't even matter if the site is accurate or not, it threw out what you believed and you reacted. Thats the point!

And I am focused. What are you?