Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Super Bowl conspiracy theory |
| 01.31.04 (8:24 pm) [edit] |
| Now, you'll have to work with me- I'm not very good at formulating conspiracy theories. That being said, it is a fairly typical, cynical reaction of many sports fans (usually when their team is the one that loses) to claim that it is rigged. And maybe it is, who really knows? This year's Super Bowl features the New England Patriots against the Carolina Panthers. Being a Colts fan, I am predisposed to the inclination of considering the games rigged. But this goes beyond the NFL. It goes straight to the White House. Is it merely a coincidence that the [b]Patriots[/b] have made it to the Superbowl in a year when the nation finds itself in a war, a war that is clearly and deeply dividing the nation? Sure, they won the Superbowl a few years ago, but come on, it's clearly a ploy initiated by the powers that be to promote [b]patriot[/b]ism and garner support for the war. Okay, still not convinced? Consider the State of the Union Address. Bush invited Tom Brady, not Jake Delhomme. Bush even addressed the use of steroids by athletes just for the opportunity to point out that the quarterback of the Patriots, apparently, supports Bush. All this considered, plus the push towards renewing the [b]Patriot[/b] Act, leads to the clear conclusion that the Bush Administration has instructed the NFL to ensure a victory by the Patriots. All bets should be placed on New England. :wink: |
| 9 Comments |
| Follow-up on proving God's existence: faith in God vs. faith in science, Creationism vs. evolution |
| 01.31.04 (12:31 am) [edit] |
|
The challenge I presented in the previous post- to provide an argument for God's existence without referring to the Bible- evoked several discussions that demand exploration before determining whether God exists. These discussions (as noted in the title) generally revolve around discrepencies in definitions and the challenge between religion and science. The first matter I will address is the difference between faith in God and faith in science. To me, faith requires two definitions. The first is in terms of religious belief. Faith in God means a [b]belief[/b] that the notion of God is true. The second definition of faith refers to scientific faith. This faith is based in acceptance- faith in science means an acceptance of scientific evidence as being true. This is why I say that ultimately we must base our assertions in faith. We either decide that it is more accurate to believe in a supreme being, or accept the evidence (or lack thereof) of scientific discoveries. In accepting science as the truth, or the means of attaining the truth, we limit ourselves to thinking in terms of our own existence; rejecting God results in regarding ourselves and what we know for certain as all that there is. In choosing to believe in God, we limit ourselves to being subjected to the scrutiny of a supreme being; our lives only have meaning in terms of what meaning is dictated to us by our supreme being. Moving on, a similar discussion revolves around the debate over how we came to exist. The two most common explanations revolve around the theories of Creationism and evolution. Creationism states that a being (or beings) created the universe. According to Creationism, and keeping this more or less in reference to Christianity, God created the world and everything in and around it. God created the plants and animals, and God created the human being, in His image (side note: I wonder how the turtles feel about this...). The intrinsic problem with the Creationist argument is that there is no evidence of any such supreme being. The counter to this is that the proof of God lies in the design of the universe. But before delving into proving God's existence, let's examine evolutionary theory. According to this theory, we have evolved through the years; humans came into existence through evolutionary means from other primates. The primary aspect of evolution is that there are notable alterations in genes that occur over many generations to result in a more advanced species. Natural selection plays a major role in this- mutations in genes occur and those that are beneficial and necessary for survival are what allow a species to evolve. Without natural selection, a species will not survive through many generations. The difference between Creationism and evolution is that one relies on faith (or belief) in a Creator of the universe and all life, while the other relies on facts to explain how we came into existence. Evolution does not necessarily explain how the universe came to exist, however. This is why it is still possible to believe in a Creator and accept the theory of evolution. Accepting science over religion, however, allows for an explanation of the origins of the universe to be based in factual evidence, rather than faith. The reason I wanted to have a discussion on the existence of God was not so I could prove that God does not exist, that would be absurd (it defies logic to try and prove such a negative, and as such is impossible). I think it is important to understand the reasons we decide to believe in whatever it is we choose to accept as reality. In dealing with a concept such as the existence of some supreme being who created the universe, one must first decide whether or not this story seems logical and then examine the evidence, or lack thereof, to determine whether this claim is true or not. It is important to understand why it is one determines it to be true or false. As these discussions show, I think it is apparent that there is no concrete evidence to support the theory of an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the universe. This does not necessarily mean that the claim is false, but that it is impossible to determine without a doubt that this story is true or false. So, we must decide whether it is more beneficial to us to accept this story on faith as being true, or to dismiss it due to a lack of evidence (or simply state that we cannot know and leave it at that). This is where reasoning comes in and this is the point I was hoping to make. Is it better to believe in a supreme being and maintain a life based in serving a religion, basing your actions on the morality dictated by a religion; or is it more beneficial to live your life based on doing what you see fit, exercising your own morality, and determing what course of action is best for you? Obviously that was a biased question, I believe the latter to be the more beneficial option of the two and I think you lose quite a bit by believing in God and resolving yourself to the whims of a religion. Feel free to insert your bias in the comments section. I also wanted to write about religion vs. spirituality and atheism vs. agnosticism, but I think this will be sufficient for now. |
| 12 Comments |
| Challenges (for theists) |
| 01.28.04 (11:00 pm) [edit] |
|
I presented this challenge several days ago to a fellow tblogger who offers to answer questions of a religious nature. He has not yet responded, so I thought I would offer anyone who may read this the same challenge. In an effort to promote an intellectual discussion concerning the issue of religion, I ask you to prove to me, or make some sort of argument for the existence of God. However, you must refrain from citing or referring to the Bible, as the Bible is only credible [b]if[/b] God exists. Another challenge, that is less of a challenge than a request, is to describe your views of atheism. What do you think an atheist believes and how do you perceive atheism. There are no wrong answers, I'm just curious. Thank you! |
| 22 Comments |
| The morality and politics of controversial issues- an open forum |
| 01.28.04 (3:54 pm) [edit] |
|
I feel as though I have exhausted the point of maintaining a separation between religion and politics, morality and legislation. But I don't think the point is understood by all, and this separation certainly isn't implemented by all. On issues of controversy, such as abortion or gay marriage, I will typically say that the government shouldn't interfere with the private lives of the citizens and leave it at that. But that's not an adequate explanation. These controversial issues (abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, affirmative action, drugs, and anything else you can think of) must be viewed from two different perspectives, based on two different standards. First is the political standard. This is what I generally focus on when discussing such issues. The political and legal ramifications of legislation regarding these controversial issues are necessary to examine. For instance, if abortion is banned, it is taking away the rights of the individual to choose. Conversely, if it is legal, it is argued that it takes away the rights of the baby. The legal implications must be examined without regard to the moral implications. The political standards are for all the citizens, moral standards vary from individual to individual. This is why it is dangerous for the government to dictate morality; it is not the role of the government to decide morality in such situations. This brings us to the second standard, morality. There are clear moral implications for the acts of abortion or the use of the death penalty. These issues must be examined from a moral perspective. However, this morality is of an individual nature. Each individual has the responsibility to exercise morality in regard to these issues. It is not the government's responsibility to determine moral standards. This being said, we should consider the issues from two separate perspectives, and refrain from allowing the two to intertwine. Abortion cannot be made illegal because it is immoral- that moral view is not standard, and should not be made so by the government. So, I urge you to contemplate both the moral and the political aspects of all issues, but remember that, in discussing legislation, morality must be maintained separate from politics. If you would like, please comment stating your two separate opinions on each issue mentioned (abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, etc.)- moral and political. State how you feel in terms of the ethical rectitude of each issue itself, regardless of the legality, and then state what you think the legally sound decision is. |
| 6 Comments |
| Again, the importance of the false claims of WMD |
| 01.27.04 (2:04 pm) [edit] |
|
It seems as though my point was missed by some, so let me make it short and simple for you. The war was waged based on these claims that Iraq had massive stockpiles of WMD. These claims were based on intelligence given to the Bush Administration, presumably. Clearly, this intelligence was erroneous. Faulty intelligence is forgivable to a certain extent, and basing assumptions on this information is also allowable, but not when the outcome of the claims made results in a war. Mistakes were made, no matter how much you want to defend the president. And the president and his administration should be held accountable for the grave mistake of sending 500+ troops to their deaths, when rational thought and logic would have easily led them to a different conclusion. The war was not justified. I say that not because there has been nothing good to come of it, nor that I never thought the outcome could have been in some way good, but because wars must be waged solely out of necessity. There was no urgency to this war, no reason rational actions could not have prevailed. It is in no way a bad thing that Saddam is no longer in power, but it does not justify the war. JamesYerian said to me: "Be gainst the war all you want, but get the facts straight." I say to him, support the war all you want, but understand the severity of the consequences. And don't be so blind in your defense of Bush that you can't see the mistakes made by so many in this callous, impetuous war. |
| 3 Comments |
| The real problem with the false claims of WMD in Iraq |
| 01.26.04 (8:45 pm) [edit] |
|
As more and more evidence pours in providing proof that Iraq likely did not have WMD, the reasons behind the US-led invasion become increasingly questionable. The urgency of the war was based on these claims that Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell said he knew exactly where these WMD were in Iraq. The president intimated that if we neglected Hussein, we would be attacked. According to the Administration, because of these WMD, Saddam posed an imminent threat to America. That is why it was deemed necessary to go to war. President Bush decided to forego acquiring support from our allies and the UN because he felt that the evidence he was presented showed that Saddam was capable of and likely to attack us at any time. David Kay, former head of weapons inspections, stated that the fact that Iraq likely has no WMD means that there are serious problems with the intelligence Bush received and when asked if Bush needs to provide the nation with an explanation, Kay responded: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president, rather than the president owing the American people." I think both the intelligence community and the president owe the nation explanations. If the intelligence was false, as it seems to have been, those giving this information need to clarify how it is that they were wrong and why they felt that the information they received was accurate and did not confirm it prior to selling it, so to speak, to the president. Similarly, the Administration should be competent enough to check the information they receive also to have it confirmed, especially when dealing with an issue as serious as war. To say that the Administration is not to blame for errors in intelligence means that we do not hold our nation's leaders accountable for acting illogically. The reason this is such a big deal, and why it is not simply something to be shrugged off as an error in intelligence that the Administration should not take responsibility for, is that this information is what lead us into a war. War is not something so casual as to be waged regardless of rational motives. Many Bush supporters are saying that it doesn't matter whether Saddam had WMD or not because the Iraqis have been freed from a brutal dictator. Leaving aside the fact that they now have a foreign dictator, the ends do not justify the means. If this war had been justified by the president as a humanitary mission, this would be different (the question of urgency would still remain, but justification for ousting Saddam would have been evident). If we allow our leaders to impetuously lead us into wars, we will face a grave danger. The dissention among those opposing the war is not unreasonable. We were not given reasons for this war that would give it merit. We still haven't had justifiable reasons presented to us. It amazes me how many Republicans blindly support Bush's actions in dealing with Iraq. Logic demonstrates why this war was not only unjust but irrational. To me, it wouldn't matter who was in charge; I would still be against it. Furthermore: Check out Bush's various statements regarding Iraq's WMD http://customwire.ap.org/dyna... |
| 5 Comments |
| Labor Secretary Has Her Hours Cut |
| 01.25.04 (10:54 pm) [edit] |
|
WASHINGTON, DC—Deeming the move "regrettable but necessary," White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card announced Monday that Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao's work hours will be scaled back to 30 per week starting Jan. 26. "It's merely a cost-cutting measure and says absolutely nothing about Elaine, who's done wonderful work for the Bush Administration since she came on board in 2001," Card said. "Once the economy turns around, the first thing we'll do is return Elaine to her original hours. That's a promise." Chao's hours will be limited to six per day during a regular Monday-to-Friday workweek, her salary will be cut by 25 percent, and she'll lose the privileges of working flextime hours and earning time-and-a-half pay on weekends and holidays. In addition, Chao's relegation to part-time status means she'll no longer be eligible for health-insurance coverage, matching 401K contributions, or parking validation. [url=http://theonion.com/4003/news...]Read the article in its entirety[/url] Note: This is purely satirical. Mrs. Chao, as far as I know, has not been subjected to a decrease in hours, unlike myself and countless others... |
| 2 Comments |
| God must exist: an epiphany of sorts |
| 01.25.04 (6:21 pm) [edit] |
|
I have just discovered what I believe to be the most convincing of all argument's for God's existence. The most common arguments are easily refuted, but I'm not so sure about this one. For example, many say that all things have a cause, therefore the universe must have a cause; this must be God. The obvious counter to this argument is the question of what created God. If all things must have a cause, so does God. Another argument, and the one I most vehemently disagree with, is based on morality. This argument states that without God there would be no right or wrong. However, morality is not dependent on religious belief, or a belief in God. All of humanity actively distinguishes between right and wrong; in fact, it is maladaptive and counter to survival to not exercise moral discretion in our decisions. There are consequences for any action, and to not realize these consequences is not a very stable way to live, and not conducive to longevity of life. Logic dictates that there must be proof of something in order for it to be rational to accept it as being true. The only 'irrefutable proof' of God's existence for many is that the Bible says so, God has shown them the way, or something similarly lacking in concrete evidence. So, there must be a reason for why people believe in something given so little factual evidence. Generally, I would state that the main function of religion is to provide answers to difficult questions, such as why and how we exist and what happens once we cease to exist. In this vein, I would assume that people choose to believe in God because this belief comforts them. However, it has occurred to me that it is not in the least comforting. God knows all, sees all, and is constantly aware of all your thoughts and actions. That's just creepy. Christianity's answer to the questions of how and why we came into being is that God created us in his image to "love him and enjoy him forever." (http://christiananswers.net/q...) What would God, a supreme being, need with millions of creatures worshipping Him, unless He is just that vain? Anyway, that's not really my point. My point is that's not the most comforting explanation of our origins of existence and the meaning of life. To think I'm just here to give love to my Creator doesn't really give my life that much meaning. Next, there is the explanation of what happens to us once we die. If we live a good life and worship God, we will go to Heaven. If we sin and do not repent, do not believe in and worship God, we will be sent to Hell for eternal damnation. This does provide a sense of justice, I suppose, but still is not that comforting when examining the nature of Heaven. Heaven is described as lacking all that which we enjoy here on earth and consisting of many things that we dislike. How is it comforting to view our final destination as a place void of pleasures like sex and consisting of constant church-like services, with singing and harp playing and such? (note: I am mostly just making fun of the notion of Heaven, taken from Mark Twain's Letters From the Earth; [url=http://www.positiveatheism.or...]Satan's third letter[/url])? Now, since a belief in God is not only lacking in factual evidence- making it illogical at best, irrational and dangerous at worst, to believe in God- but it also actually isn't that comforting to maintain a belief in a supreme being that constantly watches you and knows everything you do, the only other reason to believe God exists must be of a divine nature. Perhaps the belief in God is irrational because God in fact does exist and only wants certain members of His creation to know it, so He provides them with some divine knowledge of His existence. And this is what people really mean when they say that to understand that God exists you must first know the Holy Spirit. Hmm, did I just present a conspiracy theory of God's existence? |
| 17 Comments |
| The interdependence of the cultural universals |
| 01.24.04 (8:57 pm) [edit] |
|
In anthropological terms, there are several traits associated with every known culture, called cultural universals. These include: economics, religion, political organization (or government), social organization, language (or a communication system), technology/material culture, and art. The debate over the separation of church and state, or the separation of religion and politics, brings up the question of how these cultural universals interact with one another. Is any one of these dependent on the others to exist? There is a certain interdependency of these 7 universals. Consider, for example, art. The principle functions of art include business or economic uses, religious worship, political propaganda, social commentary, and communication. The methods of producing art are supplied by the technology/material culture. Art functions on many levels, with the inclusion of each of the other cultural universals. However, art is not absolutely dependent on the other universals to exist. Art serves many purposes and not all are directly related to another universal. Just as art relates to all the other cultural traits but does maintain a certain right of existence regardless of the others, so do the other traits of a culture. Religion and politics are cultural aspects that each serve a particular function. There is a certain amount of convergence among the two due to similarity in ideas or confusion of roles. There tends to be a lack of clarity in the dominance of the roles granted to the political realm of life and those of a relilgious basis. When laws are made that establish religious dominance or when religions declare the righteousness of one particular political idealogy, there is an intermingling of the two facets of life that demonstrates the way in which our culture's traits are interdependent. In many cultures, there is no separation of the two, religion dominates politics or, less often, politics dominate religion (example: French secularism). In our culture, there is an emphasis placed on the necessity of separating the two. Religion must not determine the course of politics and the government cannot enact any particular religious system's dominance over others. In any society, the needs for some sort of economic system- a means of exchanging goods and services- must exist. Economics directly relates to politics; the question of how goods and services should be regulated (if at all) falls under the domain of the government. Politics leads the social organization of the society; social organization is often relevant to religious affiliation and spiritual pursuits bonding society. Technology, language, and art all affect each of the other cultural universals, and are equally affected by the others, as well. They influence the course of politics, the role and intensity of religious belief, and the quality and productivity of the economic realm. The cultural universals, these traits apparent in every culture, act in accordance with each other and, in many ways, influence the others. However, particularly in the case of religion and politics, there must remain clear boundaries between each in order for them to remain prominent societal and cultural indicators. The role of religion in the public sphere must be clarified, and so too should the role of the government in both our public and private lives. When the two converge with neither maintaining a clear mandate over a particular issue, we find ourselves in a social dilemma. The roles must be clearly defined so that we maintain some sort of national cohesion. This role confusion has sparked numerous debates and is a major cause of the current divisiveness of our country. I suggest we allow both politics and religion to coexist, but disallow the interference of one with the other. |
| 3 Comments |
| Weapons or lies of mass destruction? |
| 01.23.04 (9:34 pm) [edit] |
|
Because the topic of the war in Iraq hasn't nearly been exhausted, I thought I would post on the newly appointed chief Iraq arms inspector. Charles Duelfer, former deputy head of the UN weapons inspection team, will be replacing David Kay, who has resigned. It is suspected that one of the main reasons for Kay's resignation is his disillusionment with the search for WMD in Iraq. From [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/am...]BBC News[/url]: "I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s." "I think we have found probably 85% of what we're going to find." For many of us, this is not surprising. The prospect of Hussein having stockpiles of WMD was highly suspect, especially given the fact that he made no effort to use any retaliatory forces that could come anywhere near 'mass destruction.' The claim all along was based on the fact that Saddam never acknowledged that he in fact no longer had access to WMD. Logic demonstrates why he would not want to admit to the world that he no longer had any authority, however- that would leave him very vulnerable. So, not only is the Administration's vehemence in pursuing a war based on false claims of WMD very questionable, but it is also disconcerting to consider the illogical and irrational actions of the Bush Administration. Claiming that Saddam posed an imminent threat, had stockpiles of WMD, and/or was linked to al-Qaeda were the major reasons outlined to convince the nation and the world that the immediate use of force was necessary. Liberation of the Iraqi citizens was a reason given, but not one given nearly enough emphasis. The whole idea of this war would be immensely more appealing if the main reason for it was to liberate the Iraqis. But it wasn't and likely still isn't. From the article: "Vice President Dick Cheney said he still had not given up hope of finding WMDs in Iraq." I would think that, regardless of the fact that it makes the Administration look terrible, it is a good thing that there have been no WMD found in Iraq. But Cheney [i]hopes[/i] to find them? Why in the world would he want to find them, other than to lend credibility to the claim of WMD leading up to the war? This makes me very suspicious. So, either there are WMD in Iraq and the war is justified by Bush's claims, or there are not and the reasons outlined for this war were based in lies. The latter seems much more likely. |
| 5 Comments |
| Gay marriage: political, moral, and social views |
| 01.22.04 (9:38 pm) [edit] |
|
With the recent decision in Massachusetts allowing homosexuals the right to receive the benefits of marriage, there has been much discussion and controversy over the issue of gay marriage. Gay marriage is not solely an issue of gay rights- there are many differing viewpoints that must be considered in regard to gay marriage. Politically, the issue of gay marriage evokes the importance of investigating the motives behind such legislation. The legal definition of marriage is challenged by Massachussetts' ruling. This is Bush's reasoning for proposing a ban on gay marriage- he contends that one state cannon rewrite the definition of marriage for all other states. The political ramifications of legislation either for or against marriage also consist of bringing a certain sense of moral, and in turn, religious, preference to the political arena. The controversy over granting homosexuals the right to marry is based on the religious definition of marriage- as a holy union between a man and a woman- as well as the view that homosexuality is a sin. Thus, to provide a legal answer to this question is to assert a religious morality in the government and on the people. This undermines the concept of the separation of church and state. This issue also sheds light on the impact of governmental legislation regarding the private lives of the citizens. For the government to determine whether a couple may marry is evidence of the ever-increasing power given to the government. It is my contention that the government should have no reason to interfere in the private decision of marriage. There should be no legal benefits (or repercussions) received as a result of marriage, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. The moral implications of allowing or disallowing gays to marry lie not in the realm of legislative authority or political action, but involve religious and cultural standards. As stated before, the religious view generally maintains that homosexuality itself is a sin. This view also holds marriage to be a sacred, holy bond. It is obvious why those claiming these beliefs are appalled at the concept of gay marriage- to them it is not only allowing a sinful act, it is demeaning the nature of the most sacred union between two people. However, my solution to this moral problem is quite simply logical thought. Marriage is a union between two people; sex is a private matter, generally between two people. Unless you are one of the people directly involved, it doesn't affect you. Thus, whether a couple is allowed to exist should not matter to you. I propose that the moral standard of equality of rights for all serves a better purpose than the moral standard that is condemning of a particular lifestyle. The foreboding of Bush's gay marriage ban can be viewed in terms of the social implications. Is our society ready to allow the homosexual lifestyle not only the right to exist, but the entitlement to marry? Can the private lives of the citizens be determined by the government? Should homosexuals be given the same benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples? Moreover, this issue requires that there be a definitive set of requirements (at least legally) for what marriage is. As it is, there is no ultimate definition of marriage to be held as a standard. Marriage can be viewed as a holy union between a man and a woman, a commitment to love for all eternity, a more simplified union of two people, or a coming together for a specific purpose (be it monetary in motive, or social- as in marrying for status). None of these defintions- and I'm sure there are more ways of interpreting marriage- is to be held to a higher regard than any other; they are all equally valid. Many may disagree with some of the definitions of marriage or the motives, but there is no absolute definition of marriage. The president, as it seems, would like to change this, at least in the legal realm. Bush would like to have marriage defined for all as a sacred union between a man and a woman. His motive for this as well as his rationale, is based in religion. Should we allow religion to converge into the political realm and set a moral standard? Additionally, we must use the prominent discussion of this issue to examine the definition and purpose of marriage itself. The purpose of marriage depends entirely on the definition given. If you'll notice, only one definition I supplied previously mentioned love. This is because I don't see how marriage can be defined as a means of confirming or supporting love. I'm really only mentioning this to point you towards this http://www.tblog.com/template... my essay on marriage- which I just moved to my blog so that comments can be made. :wink: |
| 8 Comments |
| My assessment of the State of the Union Address |
| 01.21.04 (12:23 am) [edit] |
|
Because I'm sure you're dying to know what I have to say in response. I very rarely have much to say that is positive about Bush, but I will say that, in terms of presentation, Bush's speech was commendable. There were only a few words that he stumbled over, a few tongue-tied incidents, but nothing out of the realm of expectation for anyone making a speech. As far as I can recall, his biggest slip-up was saying the young girl who sent him a letter was age 2, then correcting himself to say she was 10. As for the speech itself, there were parts that I agreed with and parts that induced the same reaction in myself as in Senator Kennedy (I really wished they had just shown him the entire time). My personal favorite portion of the speech was the reaction from the Democrats when Bush was on the subject of the Patriot Act. When Bush first praised the act, there was a notable lack of applause from the Dems, and when Bush went on to encourage the reinstatement of the Patriot Act, the Dems burst into applause at the mention of the Patriot Act's expiration. Did anyone else think Cheney looked a little sick? I was a bit worried he would have another heart attack. Anway, back to the speech... I'm not really sure what Bush's point was with encouraging athletes to set an example by ceasing use of steroids and other drugs, other than to have them show that Tom Brady was there. I mean, what does that really have to do with the state of the union? All in all, the speech was well-delivered and will likely result in an increase in Bush's approval rating. He, as suspected, emphasized the efforts in the war on terrorism that are positive and stayed away from anything that could draw much criticism, with the most notable exception being his anti-gay marriage stance- which appeals to more conservative voters. It is clear that this was a speech motivated by re-election efforts (and yes, contrary to the desire of many Bush supporters, everything Bush does in the months to come will have some sort of political motive behind it, including the timing of this speech). Next topic: Gay marriage and the President's insistence on banning gay marriage. Please let me know your thoughts on this issue. |
| 8 Comments |
| How to enjoy the State of the Union Address |
| 01.20.04 (12:24 pm) [edit] |
| It's quite simple really. Every year, the President of the United States (sorry, I'm not cool enough to use "POTUS" (no offense, jimdoney)) gives a speech to the nation detailing, well, the state of the Union, and his proposals for improvement along with boasting for what he has done over the past year (disregarding or putting a positive spin on the neglected or mishandled issues of the past year). Last year, I sat through Bush's address and, for the most part, either laughed after whatever inane statement he made or got angry at how misleading his statements generally were (and how many would conclude that what he was saying was truthful or right). There just has to be a better way to watch the State of the Union Address. I believe I have found it. For anyone wanting a way to stay in the loop politically by watching the Address, but don't want the negative repercussions of having to actually focus on or even comprehend what Bush says, I suggest you go to [url=http://www.drinkinggame.us/]this site[/url] and take their suggestion. Not only will you be able to enjoy the State of the Union Address, you will have the opportunity to read the transcript of the speech for yourself the next day, seeing as you likely won't remember having watched it in the first place. :wink: |
| 7 Comments |
| John Kerry? |
| 01.19.04 (11:18 pm) [edit] |
|
It seems that John Kerry's recent surge was enough to secure a victory in the Iowa caucus. John Edwards finished in a close second, with Dean and Gephardt finishing out the top four. For Gephardt, this is the end of a political career. For Dean, this provides a great challenge in the upcoming race in New Hampshire. As for Kerry and Edwards, the underdog mentality will now be erased and a new authority will be given to their campaigns. Up to about a week ago, there was very little doubt that Dean would not be victorious in Iowa. So what happened to Dean? According to MSNBC.com, a great deal of Dean's dwindling popularity was due to a seeming [b]arrogance[/b], a condescending nature in Dean. "Other rank-and-file Iowa Democrats repeatedly used the word “arrogant” to describe Dean." Also, there was much discussion on the candidates' involvement, or non-involvement, in the Vietnam war. Kerry served in the Navy during this time; Dean was cleared from being drafted. Dean asserted that all the attacks directed at him took their toll and resulted in boosting the appeal of the less publicized (and therefore less criticized) candidates. What this means for the Democratic Party in general, I couldn't tell you. We'll just have to wait and see. |
| 3 Comments |
| Let's discuss... |
| 01.19.04 (8:59 pm) [edit] |
|
Since I'm feeling no real inspiration to write anything thoughtful, how about we have a little discussion on all matters controversial. I have a feeling, while some will agree with others in part, there will likely be as many differing viewpoints as there are comments submitted. Thoughtful (not hateful) discussion is the best way to reach conclusions on issues that aren't so easily resolved. That being said, here are the topics I suggest for discussion, along with my personal opinion regarding the issue: [b]Abortion:[/b] I am pro-choice because I believe that the government should not have the authority to impose moral standards, and abortion should be treated as a moral issue rather than legal. [b]Death Penalty:[/b] I am against the Death Penalty. I don't think anyone deserves to die and I think it violates the individual's rights as outlined in the constitution/Declaration of Independence (you know, [b]life[/b], liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Also, the judicial system is not infallible and I think that if even one innocent person is wrongly sentenced to die, it is an atrocity. [b]Gay marriage:[/b] Honestly, I am surprised that I feel the need to include this issue as a controversial topic. I was surprised to learn how many Americans are against allowing homosexuals the right to marry. But apparently this is an issue of increasing controversy. My opinion is that everyone should be granted the right to marry. I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage in the first place, but I certainly don't think there should be a law banning gay marriage. It is a private matter and should not involve the government. [b]Affirmative Action:[/b] I am against Affirmative Action, as I think it goes against the notion of equality and only fosters inequality. I support true equality, not forced retributive "equality." There are many other controversial issues that could be discussed, but let's just start off with these. Let me know how you feel about these issues (and others, if you feel so inclined). |
| 11 Comments |
| Moral relativity... dedicated to JamesYerian |
| 01.17.04 (11:27 pm) [edit] |
|
In case you've missed it, check out [url=http://jamesyerian.tblog.com]JamesYerian's Blog[/url], which was in response to my previous post on Catholicism, and the inspiration for this post. I would like to explain my view on morality. I think that morality is relative. What this means is that there is no set standard by which morality is to be determined. Obviously this notion of moral relativity is not something easily embraced by those who profess a belief in a Creator, as to have a Creator, we must have an authority over us guiding our actions and assigning us certain moral guidelines. Even operating under the assumption that we have a set of moral standards based in the religion of choice, it seems fairly obvious to me that we must still recognize that this morality is still at least somewhat relative. We must realize that religion itself is relative. Not religious belief in general (religion is one of the 7 cultural universals, to speak anthropologically), but specific religious faiths are not universally acclaimed. This puts morality, as defined by whatever religion you choose to define your moral standards by, into question. How do we know which religion, and thus which moral code, is right? So, I would argue that morality is relative, regardless of religious belief. What does it imply for humanity if there is no absolute moral code, no set of ethical standards by which to determine the merit of our actions? It means that we have a certain freedom, a freedom of choosing our actions based on our own reasoning. Contrary to the common argument, we do not resort to uncivilized, uncouth, barbaric actions because of this freedom. To be free means to take individual responsibility for our actions. There is a certain accountability that is inherent in our capacity to reason morally, and necessary to our survival. To act without regard to the consequences that undoubtedly follow for any action would not be in our best interest, regardless of moral implications. Just as my opinions regarding politics likely differ in some way from everyone else's, my ideas of morality may not be the same as yours. This does not mean that my moral standards are any higher or lower than yours (though that may be the case); it means that, as human's with free will and the mental capacity to reason in various ways, we have differing priorities resulting in different moralities. For example, on the issue of marriage, my moral code dictates that the forced commitment of a couple goes against the nature of love, which is more important to me. You may very well feel that the most important aspect regarding marriage is the holy union, holding sacred religious views as more important than love. Both views are valid, both are equally based in moral reasoning. Though I might argue that my view of love being more important is better than your view of a sacred (forced) bond holding greater import- and you would likely argue the opposite- an objective examination of both viewpoints would maintain that both opinions are equally valid. I would suggest moral reasoning to be a more fitting term than moral relativism because of the implications of there being no merit to a life in which there are no standards. Though these standards are relative, they are important and are acquired through reasoning, not acting on blind faith. |
| 7 Comments |
| A biased blog of blasphemy (or why I will never understand Catholicism) |
| 01.15.04 (10:16 pm) [edit] |
|
I have recently come to the conclusion that I will never understand Catholics. I generally dislike generalizing like this, but it seems to me that Catholics are the most unreasonable people in the world. Don't get too angry, I'm not saying all Catholics are unreasonable, but those who feel that Catholic dogma is infallible and all that there is (or should be) must think and rationalize in a way that I will never be able to comprehend. I've tried to see things from the Catholic perspective on many issues and tried to understand how it is that a person can come to many of the conclusions that seem to be reached by devout Catholics. For instance, why must religion be a part of politics? I can understand that one would want their moral standards to be embraced by all, but how is it logical to force morality through legislation? The most common argument against abortion, euthenasia, gay rights, etc. is that it is morally reprehensible in the Catholic religion (okay, this argument is used by those of most religions, I'm only picking on Catholicism in this blog because it seems to be the most common or powerfully argued). Let's assume that Catholic dogma is infallible and the morality dictated by the Catholic Church is the one true morality. That would mean that we would all be better off for following these moral standards, right? So why wouldn't I agree with enacting legislation to enforce these morals? [b]It goes against freedom to enforce morality.[/b] Moreover, I don't think the Catholic Church is infallible, and I probably don't agree with most of the moral standards dictated by Catholicism. But most importantly, morals are relative. Whether you agree with abortion or not, whether you think assisted suicide is right or wrong, whether you think gay marriage should be allowed or banned, quite frankly doesn't matter. The government should have nothing to do with private decisions. I have, however, come to the conclusion that it is pointless to try and argue these points to those who rely on their faith to reason on these issues. I will not likely convince anyone that these issues are not absolved by government intervention, but are matters of personal choice, individual rights, and personal morality. Likewise, it is highly doubtful that any Catholic will convince me of their argument on these (and many other) issues. But I will make one more feeble attempt at persuasion on the issue of gay marriage and gay rights. Despite the fact (if you say so) that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible as being immoral, those who choose to engage in this lifestyle are still humans, with certain inalienable, inherent rights. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, correct? Lifestyle is a pretty big part of life as well as the pursuit of happiness- no one should be forced to live a certain way. It is a matter of liberty that no one should have their individual rights, including private matters such as sex and sexual orientation, infringed upon. As far as gay marriage is concerned, the problem comes in that many view marriage as a religious ceremony and commitment. It doesn't have to be; civil unions afford the same benefits of marriage without having a religious ceremony. My suggestion, however, is to do away with the benefits received by marriage. Marriage should not be a matter that the government is involved in. If you would like to know more about my anti-marriage stance, you can read my essay (first link on the left (nice plug, huh?)). Alright, let the bitterly opposing biased comments commence. :wink: |
| 14 Comments |
| Be sure to read the fine print |
| 01.13.04 (2:53 pm) [edit] |
|
I promise I'll stop with the cutting and pasting after this one- I just couldn't resist. :wink: HELSINKI (Reuters) - Nokia, besides being the world's biggest maker of mobile phones, also dispenses motherly advice on how to drive safely and be healthy, happy and less of a pain in the neck -- if you read the small print. "Don't use your mobile phone when you're driving. Signal when you change lanes, stop when the light turns red and watch out for that kid on the bicycle... And it wouldn't kill you if you called your mother every once in a while," reads a Nokia marketing brochure. Friendless phone owners are out of luck if they expect their Nokia cellphones to ring, it adds. "No one will call you if you don't have any friends," reads the leaflet sent to shops around the world selling the Nokia 6800 model. Spokesman Pekko Isosomppi told Reuters on Tuesday the phone's disclaimer aimed to lure "young, urban professionals with a good sense of humor." He said no judicial corners were cut, with all the necessary warnings and product information about mobile phones given and with a bit added for good measure. In the pamphlet, the handset giant also advises its customers to switch off their phones and forget about work for the weekend if they want to live longer. Those in need of cellphone etiquette guidance or lifestyle tips could also turn to Nokia: "If you use your mobile phone in a fast-food restaurant, keep your voice down so you won't annoy people. And order a salad ... Quit smoking. Drink less." Isosomppi said the pamphlet has inspired some conversation in Internet chat-rooms. "But the reality is that a majority of people miss it. Normally, no one reads (the small print). |
| 0 Comments |
| War College Report on Iraq War |
| 01.13.04 (12:01 am) [edit] |
|
Sorry, I'm in a cut-and-paste, no thoughtful commentary mood tonight... [b]War College Report: Iraq War an'Error'[/b] By BOB JOHNSON Associated Press Writer MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- A report published by the Army War College calls the Bush administration's war on terrorism unfocused and says the invasion of Iraq was "a strategic error." The research paper by Jeffrey Record, a professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, said the president's strategy "promises much more than it can deliver" and threatens to spread U.S. military resources too thin. Record also wrote that Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not present a threat to the United States and was a distraction from the war on terrorism. Record is a visiting professor at the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pa. The paper was published last month by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute. Lt. Col. Merideth Bucher, public affairs officer for the Army War College, said Monday it is not unusual for students, mostly higher ranking officers, at the war college to be exposed to critical thought that might be contrary to current national policy. She said students are often exposed to speakers with varying views. The director of the Strategic Studies Institute, Douglas Lovelace Jr., said it was originally founded by President Dwight Eisenhower to take a critical independent analysis of military issues from an academic perspective. "Dr. Record is a noted national security specialist. It's not at all at odds for us to analyze a given mission and arrive at a conclusion that seems at odds with national policy," Lovelace said. He said in the past the institute has released studies analyzing U.S. policy in Haiti, Afghanistan and other hot spots. Record could not be reached immediately for comment Monday through Army public affairs offices and he did not immediately respond to e-mails from The Associated Press. He is the author of six books and is a former legislative assistant for national security affairs to Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Georgia, and former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, D-Texas. Record's report concludes that the war on terrorism is too widespread and should focus on al-Qaeda and other terrorist threats to the United States. "The United States may be able to defeat al-Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil," Record writes. Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. |
| 2 Comments |
| Fewer attacks since Saddam's capture |
| 01.12.04 (11:57 pm) [edit] |
|
[b]Attacks Down 22% Since Saddam's Capture[/b] By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY BAGHDAD — Attacks against coalition forces in Iraq have dropped 22% in the four weeks since Saddam Hussein's capture, military records show. U.S. military officers say the decline in attacks, after months of growing intensity, is the first proof that Saddam's capture and recent U.S. offensives have dampened, but not eliminated, resistance to the occupation. The average number of daily attacks fell to 18 in the four weeks since Dec. 14, when the coalition announced that Saddam had been captured the day before. In the four weeks before Saddam was found, attacks averaged 23 a day. During the same periods, U.S. combat injuries dropped only slightly, from 233 in the four weeks before Saddam's capture to 224 in the four weeks after. And the attacks remain deadly: 22 troops killed from Nov. 16 through Dec. 13 and 31 in the comparable period Dec. 14- Jan. 10. But the figures for deaths do not include the 17 U.S. soldiers who died Nov. 15 when two helicopters crashed in the city of Mosul. U.S. military officers say they are optimistic they are close to breaking the resistance. "We are winning this fight," said Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, assistant commander of the 1st Armored Division, responsible for security in most of Baghdad. But Hertling and other military officials also warn that the insurgency is not over. A preliminary investigation indicated that a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter that crashed Thursday near Fallujah, about 30 miles from Baghdad, was hit by ground fire. All nine U.S. soldiers on board died. Insurgents have harried the U.S.-led coalition and its Iraqi allies since President Bush declared major combat over on May 1. A review of coalition records that list daily assaults from Oct. 30 to Jan. 10 shows guerrilla activity peaked in November at an average of 29 attacks per day. The single worst day: Nov. 11 with 50. Attacks began falling off when U.S. forces launched offensives based on improved intelligence in December. The decline accelerated with Saddam's capture. The reports are compiled from U.S. and coalition military units across Iraq. Among the factors U.S. and Iraqi officials say helped cut the number of attacks: • Saddam's capture ended hopes that he might reclaim power. Though Saddam was not believed to be coordinating the attacks, the inability to capture him caused some Iraqis to believe he might return. • Offensives that started before Saddam was caught led to the death or capture of leaders and disrupted guerrilla financing and weapons supplies. But Iraqi and U.S. officials expect violence to continue. "Terror will not end," said Ahmed Kadhum Ibrahim, a senior Interior Ministry official. |
| 0 Comments |
| How did we get here and what do we do now? |
| 01.11.04 (11:01 pm) [edit] |
|
In order to figure out a solution to the situation in Iraq and the world in general, we must first understand the events leading up to the actions in Iraq. To understand the full scope of the situation is the first step towards a resolution. First off, we are dealing with the world political arena and therefore must understand how world politics differs from domestic politics. In domestic politics, there is authority- there are rules, limits, and people or institutions set up to establish and enforce these rules and limits. There is a concern of misuse of power, that those in charge will fail to serve our interests or to serve justice. In world politics, there is no authority; there is anarchy. There are no rules, no government, no legitimate way to enact and enforce laws. There is a security dilemma inherent in world politcs. The UN acts as a measure to create a world community and foster cooperation among nation-states. But the UN is only effective as long as the nation-state chooses to join and cooperate with the UN. There is no world governing body, no way to ensure freedom and justice for all in the world. That being said, we must then look at the history of the Middle East. Rather than delve deep into the history, we will start with post-World War II, with the notion of Panarabism. In the aftermath of situations in which Nasser, colonel who threw out the king in Egypt, asserted power over the Suez Canal, Egypt was attacked by Israel. The U.S. was concerned with the public mood in the Middle East, and along with the Soviet Union, pressured Israel, Britain, and France to stop the war. Nasser became increasingly popular in the Middle East and Egypt and Syria united, forming the United Arab Republic. Panarabism asserted that all Arab people should be united in one big and powerful state. This appeal for Arab unity is apparent in today's time as well, and it is for this reason that bin Laden's popularity is hightened by the notion of one Arab state, needing a leader. The implications of the attacks of 9/11 include a return of politics, history, and government. There had been a clash of ideologies in the 20th century- liberal democracies against fascism and communism. Fascism more or less disentegrated, and communism was contained in the early '90s. This resulted in the end of history because only liberal democracies were left. With these attacks, it is evident that history has returned- there are again fundamental clashes. The New world order in the '90s meant that the world was run by economics and technology. Arab Elites did not want to change because it would weaken their power- globalization was not in their best interest. This demonstrates a return of politics. As a result of the attacks of 9/11, government returned in a big way. The top priority shifted to security. Government intervention in individual affairs can now be justified as a means of national security measures. Civil liberties are reduced when national security becomes the main focus of the government. In Afghanistan, the Taliban was able to take over control. Afghan arabs, such as bin Laden, were able to raise money for schools in refugee camps- schools which taught strict fundamentalism, strict Muslim faith, and foster a commitment to the Islamic revolution. The Taliban was made up of "students" educated in these schools. The motives for the September 11 attacks include hate, punishment, a desire for the removal of American forces, personal gain, and a desired big response by the US. In the Middle East, the West, and the US in particular, is viewed as evil and Imperialistic. Since 1991, the US has had military forces in Saudi Arabia enforcing a no fly zone. Bin Laden's political motives would be enhanced by uniting the Arab world. A big reaction by the US would seem to be indiscriminate violence against Arabs, thus contributing to the idea of a holy war and furthering bin Laden's cause and appeal. In the aftermath of these attacks, it was imperative that President Bush was able to reassure the American public and reassert American dominance in the world. Bush announced a "War on Terror," an initiative to fight terrorism and keep America and the rest of the world safe. However, the situation in Afghanistan looked bleak, Osama could not be captured. Too much of a focus on the failure to immediately secure America by stopping bin Laden and his terrorist network would only make the US appear as a weakening power. So the "War on Terror" shifted its focus to Iraq's brutal dictator. Bush relied on false and misleading information to convince the nation that a preemptive war with Iraq was the right thing to do. Capturing Saddam gives a great deal of credibility to President Bush and, to many, makes this war seem justified. However, there is now an American dictator in Iraq, an exorbitant amount of US funds supporting this war, and no definitive plan for rebuilding Iraq. It is important that we do not lose sight of the bad policies and falsities of the Bush Administration involving this war, but we must also recognize that there is nothing we can do to change how we got to where we are. We must now focus on a solution. While I disagree with the war, it would be a massive mistake to withdraw the troops now. I don't know what the solution is; I only know that acting on purely political motives (mostly individual, rather than national) could be disastrous. Bush's motives seem to be motivated in large part by his own political interests, especially as we enter a pivotal election year. Among most current politicians, individual gain is favored over national betterment. Whether a policy is what is truly best for the nation is not as important as the implications of the policy for the politician himself. This needs to change. We need politicians with integrity who will stand up for the country, regardless of what this means for their careers.[LINE] [i]Most of the ideas outlined here are not my original thoughts. Many were taken from various essays in a Public Affairs book entitled How Did This Happen?[/i] |
| 3 Comments |
| Iraq had plans of building its arsenal |
| 01.07.04 (3:45 pm) [edit] |
|
An article worthy of your perusal: [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com...]Iraq's Arsenal Was Only On Paper[/url] An excerpt: An engineering PhD known for outsized energy and gifts, [Modher Sadeq-Saba] Tamimi, 47, designed and built a new short-range missile during Iraq's four-year hiatus from United Nations arms inspections. Inspectors who returned in late 2002, enforcing Security Council limits, ruled that the Al Samoud missile's range was not quite short enough. The U.N. team crushed the missiles, bulldozed them into a pit and entombed the wreckage in concrete. In one of three interviews last month, Tamimi said "it was as if they were killing my sons." But Tamimi had other brainchildren, and these stayed secret. Concealed at some remove from his Karama Co. factory here were concept drawings and computations for a family of much more capable missiles, designed to share parts and features with the openly declared Al Samoud. The largest was meant to fly six times as far. "This was hidden during the UNMOVIC visits," Tamimi said, referring to inspectors from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. Over a leisurely meal of lamb and sweet tea, he sketched diagrams. "It was forbidden for us to reveal this information," he said. Tamimi's covert work, which he recounted publicly for the first time in five hours of interviews, offers fresh perspective on the question that led the nation to war. Iraq flouted a legal duty to report the designs. The weapons they depicted, however, did not exist. After years of development -- against significant obstacles -- they might have taken form as nine-ton missiles. In March they fit in Tamimi's pocket, on two digital compact discs. The nine-month record of arms investigators since the fall of Baghdad includes discoveries of other concealed arms research, most of it less advanced. Iraq's former government engaged in abundant deception about its ambitions and, in some cases, early steps to prepare for development or production. Interviews here -- among Iraqi weaponeers and investigators from the U.S. and British governments -- turned up unreported records, facilities or materials that could have been used in unlawful weapons. But investigators have found no support for the two main fears expressed in London and Washington before the war: that Iraq had a hidden arsenal of old weapons and built advanced programs for new ones. In public statements and unauthorized interviews, investigators said they have discovered no work on former germ-warfare agents such as anthrax bacteria, and no work on a new designer pathogen -- combining pox virus and snake venom -- that led U.S. scientists on a highly classified hunt for several months. The investigators assess that Iraq did not, as charged in London and Washington, resume production of its most lethal nerve agent, VX, or learn to make it last longer in storage. And they have found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a "grave and gathering danger" by President Bush and a "mortal threat" by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s. [LINE] What are the ramifications of the evidence given in this article that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction? If President Bush's reason for preemptively striking Iraq was because he felt that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States, it seems as though this would be a faulty reason, as Hussein had no access to WMD. So this leads us to the question of what justification Bush truly based the war on. I would like to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume that perhaps he was simply misled by information that he and those giving it truly thought to be real. However, even if that is the case and it was simply a problem of misinformation, going to war is not something to be so casually decided upon that there would not have been the necessity to validate those claims prior to declaring a unilateral war. This leads us to the question of Bush's true motives in Iraq. I am not going to speculate on what these motives are, but only say that the best explanation for Bush would be that there were a number of factors that went into the decision to attack Iraq, not only the prospect of Saddam's so-called immenent threat. The implications of Iraq having plans for building its arsenal are also important to look at. One could argue that since Hussein had these plans, he must have intended to use them and build Iraq's arsenal, thus perhaps Bush was justified in his attack after all- maybe Saddam didn't pose an imminent threat, but in the future he could have. This is similar to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman's stance on Saddam. Lieberman has supported the Iraq war on the basis of ousting Saddam in order to protect America and the rest of the world from future attacks. This makes some sense; however, it does not justify a preemptive unilateral war. This sort of preventive action makes the war based on opportunity. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush needed to act in a way to ensure America's safety and to qualm fears at home of future terrorist attacks. When the situation in Afghanistan seemed bleak, Bush was afforded the opportunity to shift the focus on Iraq and its brutal dictator. Everyone agrees that it is a good thing Saddam is gone, but I don't think the ends justify the means in this case. To offer an opposing view, on Fox News they said that it would be premature to say that all of Iraq's weapons were just conceptual. I'll agree with that but also point out that it was premature to suggest that Iraq's weapons were not merely conceptual and to go to war based solely (supposedly) on the fact that these weapons made Hussein an imminent threat. |
| 15 Comments |
| Bin Laden's political agenda |
| 01.06.04 (9:25 pm) [edit] |
|
"That's it, I'm acting the way America acts best- unilaterally!" -the oh so wise Homer Simpson That's not entirely relevant, but not altogether random either. I'd just like to take a moment to address the recent tape in which someone purported to be Osama bin Laden discussed the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Here's an excerpt: "My message is to incite you against the conspiracies, especially those uncovered by the occupation of the crusaders in Baghdad under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, and also the situation in (Jerusalem) under the deceptions of the road map and the Geneva initiative" the speaker urged Muslims to "liberate the Islamic world from the military occupation of the Crusaders." He said Gulf countries have given in to U.S. pressures "thinking that would not open the door for toppling of the dictatorial regimes by military force from outside, especially after they saw the capture of their previous comrade in treachery, a hireling of America," referring to Saddam. "The occupation of Iraq is the beginning of the full occupation of the other Gulf states. ... The Gulf is the key for control of the world in the point of view of the big powers because of the presence of the biggest deposits of oil." Now, we must keep in mind that bin Laden is not only the leader of the most prominent terrorist organization, he is also a politician. Going back to 9/11 for a moment, it is believed by many experts that one reason for the attacks was to aid bin Laden's cause by provoking a massive attack by the United States. It is well known that many in the East maintain a certain level of hatred for the U.S., and this hatred would be greatly fueled by what would seem to be indiscriminate violence against Arabs, thus promoting the idea of a holy war, giving support to bin Laden's cause and rallying the Arab world. These recent comments further illustrate bin Laden's political motives. intimating the notion that the U.S. is determined to occupy all Gulf states is simply a tactic to convince his followers that the U.S. is the enemy and the Arab world must unite in an effort to deter the enemy- unite under his leadership. So what should the U.S. do? I think many mistakes have been made in the aftermath of 9/11 and with the preemptive, unilateral war in Iraq and these mistakes make the situation more delicate and difficult to resolve. Still, there must be a way to appeal to the Arab nations and detract from bin Laden's political agenda. I think the first step, to turn this to biased American politics, would be to get Bush out of office. :wink: |
| 4 Comments |
| Moment of silence |
| 01.03.04 (10:25 pm) [edit] |
| Sorry, I cannot post because I am so deeply saddened by the recent departure of tblog's infamous JamesYerian. I will try and post again as soon as I am able to regain my composure from grieving. |
| 4 Comments |
