Emotions or Facts?

[Ocean Breeze]

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?

Until someone presents valid data showing WHERE they have been "exported" to, and in what quantities.........this is a red herring that the bush gov't can exploit. The whole scenario refutes any threat factor from SH......in the largesse the USG has indicated.---and exploited. It is back to the credibility issue. but in a sense you are right........people will believe what they want to believe ........and nothing will change their minds. Fortunately there are many who want more evidence of what is being spun .....before they "believe" or follow a certain propaganda. Fortunately there are many who continue to question. ....and it is these that are less prone to "preconceived ' ideas......

 

[Jo Canadian]

I am more or less a believer that any decision should share an equal balance of emotion and calculation. To do to much of either may result in a conflict of ethics.

Too much emotion leads to false judgements, actions- and people suffer. Too much calculation could end up causing suffering if it were to apply to a logically greater good.

Damn, Nothing's ever easy.

 

[Said1]

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"

A lot of the stuff you post is biased and questionable.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

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"

A lot of the stuff you post is biased and questionable.

:lol: :lol: :dontknow:

 

[Ocean Breeze]

I am more or less a believer that any decision should share an equal balance of emotion and calculation. To do to much of either may result in a conflict of ethics. Too much emotion leads to false judgements, actions- and people suffer. Too much calculation could end up causing suffering if it were to apply to a logically greater good.

Damn, Nothing's ever easy.

very true. Hard to be objective in "emotional" times. :?

 

[Reverend Blair]

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

See, that's not a fact. That's part of the problem here. The fact is that [fact]the UN had marked, locked, and tagged sites where dual use materials (that Iraq was not allowed to have) that could be used to produce WMD have disappeared. [/fact]

[reasonable inference]The disappearance happened after the invasion because the materials were not properly guarded or checked on any sort of regular basis. Nobody knows where they went.[/reasonable inference]

[pissed off emotion]Now what the hell were the Bushites doing? Those materials, even if they aren't used to manufacture WMD, are going to kill people. [fact]Bush's own experts warned him that he needed to send more people in order to guard such sites.[/fact] What the hell is wrong is those idiots in the Bush regime?[/pissed off emotion]

 

[I think not]

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

See, that's not a fact. That's part of the problem here. The fact is that [fact]the UN had marked, locked, and tagged sites where dual use materials (that Iraq was not allowed to have) that could be used to produce WMD have disappeared. [/fact]

[reasonable inference]The disappearance happened after the invasion because the materials were not properly guarded or checked on any sort of regular basis. Nobody knows where they went.[/reasonable inference]

[pissed off emotion]Now what the hell were the Bushites doing? Those materials, even if they aren't used to manufacture WMD, are going to kill people. [fact]Bush's own experts warned him that he needed to send more people in order to guard such sites.[/fact] What the hell is wrong is those idiots in the Bush regime?[/pissed off emotion]

Either way, WMD's existed and you acknowledge it yourself via UN locking and tagging.

 

[Reverend Blair]

[fact]No, WMDs did not exist. That is not a fact. Some of the materials to make WMDs existed, but they WMD did not. The materials in question were actually high explosives of the type that are necessary to intiate an atomic explosion. They were there before the sanctions and, in fact, date back to when Iraq was an ally of the US. They can also be used in conventional munitions.

Iraq has never gotten far enough in its nuclear program to actually use these explosive to initiate an atomic explosion and there is no evidence of a nuclear program existing after the Gulf War.[/fact]

[emotion and rhetoric] The real question is why this keeps being brought up by those who promote the Bush regime's illegal invasion of Iraq. Why are they not embarrassed by the incompetence and negligence of their leaders? Why do they continue to misrepresent the truth? [/emotion and rhetoric]

 

[jimmoyer]

Most of us who still support this war, but who do not support the hubris of Bush, or his need to use WMD as a rallying cry for the world, wished that Bush had made his other reasons more prominent.

As far as embarrassment is concerned, there is plenty for the world to have as it sits out, dainty and comfortable as it is with its own morality.

 

[Colin]

How can Bush's invasion be illegal, there are no laws in international politics unless they are upheld and enforced. The law was not enforced and therefor he must not have broken it. If in fact the law was broken and not enforced then the law itself is broken and needs to be addressed. I want to note I am not pro-invasion.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Consider the "security" alert code system in the US. (or whatever in bush it is called......( bush is a four letter word and worthy of being elevated to "swear " status now... :wink:

"they " elevate the alert......creates an emotional response of fear /uncertainty...........YET......provide no specific data re: said alert. Populous does not question this.......just "goes on alert"...... and if in enough fear will see boogeymen in their own homes.

something about Pavlov and his dog comes to mind.

 

[I think not]

Consider the "security" alert code system in the US. (or whatever in bush it is called......( bush is a four letter word and worthy of being elevated to "swear " status now... :wink:

"they " elevate the alert......creates an emotional response of fear /uncertainty...........YET......provide no specific data re: said alert. Populous does not question this.......just "goes on alert"...... and if in enough fear will see boogeymen in their own homes.

something about Pavlov and his dog comes to mind.

Maybe you should ask Jay, if he saw any populous on "alert" since New York City has been on orange alert since September 11th.

However, your point is well noted and agreed. Thats what I have been trying to convey. Pre-conceptions and emotions.

 

[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??? :?

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?

this is becoming amusing. The point .....if any ......that you are making is only part of the abstact . Now......if concrete thinking is what this is about......as in cause and effect.......that changes the premise.

Now........if you are talking about REACTIONS......and how to incite them.......that is another story :wink:


let's take another premise .......preconception if you must.

I have this "preconception" that lying is wrong. Lying about invading a nation, that posed no danger to one..(imagined or real)......is extra wrong. So it follows that when someone lies or misinforms , one is going to question this. .......and being human, "react" to being treated like a fool. Don't think one can totally separate the two in what is an "emotional" situation to begin with.

One can also have the "pre-conception" that TRUTH /FACTS are significantly more NB that disinformation and spin........

 

[Ocean Breeze]

As far as embarrassment is concerned, there is plenty for the world to have as it sits out, dainty and comfortable as it is with its own morality.

the only ones that SHOULD feel embarrassed are those that fell for the bush line of crap.

hmm. Well, someone has to uphold the moral /ethical standard......even if the USG does not. & and don't think anyone is smug about this. There have been too many lives lost, too much destruction for anyone to be smug. Furthermore, it is a tad childish to be smug.....anyhow.

 

[I think not]

this is becoming amusing. The point .....if any ......that you are making is only part of the abstact . Now......if concrete thinking is what this is about......as in cause and effect.......that changes the premise.

Now........if you are talking about REACTIONS......and how to incite them.......that is another story :wink:


let's take another premise .......preconception if you must.

I have this "preconception" that lying is wrong. Lying about invading a nation, that posed no danger to one..(imagined or real)......is extra wrong. So it follows that when someone lies or misinforms , one is going to question this. .......and being human, "react" to being treated like a fool. Don't think one can totally separate the two in what is an "emotional" situation to begin with.

One can also have the "pre-conception" that TRUTH /FACTS are significantly more NB that disinformation and spin........

You don't have a preconception that lying is wrong that is your belief and lying about an invasion continues to be your belief.

Spin has nothing to do with TRUTH/FACTS. It has everything to do with manipulating a conversation.

If you want to give it another word, call it propaganda and the masses accept it as truth, because they are already in the mindset/hatred/emotion so it works.

If I were to tell you I was a hard core communist would you believe me?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

If I were to tell you I was a hard core communist would you believe me?

Would I have evidence to the contrary??? :wink:

but therin lies the rub. There was no hard evidence of the bush claims..( using that as an example )

 

[I think not]

If I were to tell you I was a hard core communist would you believe me?

Would I have evidence to the contrary??? :wink:

but therin lies the rub. There was no hard evidence of the bush claims..( using that as an example )

There can never be any evidence, unless a trial takes place. Politics are all about eomtions and pre-conceptions, there is very little evidence, if there was hard evidence in all political matters wouldn't someone do something about it? Even if it were for political gain?

Well I'm not a hard-core communist, but I'm open to what it stands for, I truly believe at some point in time, when humanity changes its views and perceptions, then we will be ready, till then, I trust no government or politician that they will do the right thing for the people.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

If I were to tell you I was a hard core communist would you believe me?

Would I have evidence to the contrary??? :wink:

but therin lies the rub. There was no hard evidence of the bush claims..( using that as an example )

There can never be any evidence, unless a trial takes place. Politics are all about eomtions and pre-conceptions, there is very little evidence, if there was hard evidence in all political matters wouldn't someone do something about it? Even if it were for political gain?

Well I'm not a hard-core communist, but I'm open to what it stands for, I truly believe at some point in time, when humanity changes its views and perceptions, then we will be ready, till then, I trust no government or politician that they will do the right thing for the people.

I would toss misconceptions into the mix too.

the evidence factor re: the bush case(WMD).....(eg. again) is that how do you prove a negative?? This is what con artists rely on. (IMO)======enter the loopie holes of "law"


am in your corner about not "trusting" any politician. Simplistically.........as long as they are "campagning " for the job......they make all kinds of promises ......but the minute they get in.....something happens to their brain.------and they either forget all they said before. or are so enamoured with the trappings of power , their priorities change. (or both and a few others);-)

 

[MissAnnika]

i have found myself become a bit fired up over defending what i believe in. i'm sure others have too

 

[scratch]

i have found myself become a bit fired up over defending what i believe in. i'm sure others have too

As I write this someone somewhere is doing the same thing that you did.