POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq

[goldenarm]

Quote from candletrader:


What happened to Wild?

He's serving 5-10 years for copyright infringements...

 

[fairplay]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



It is an intellectual weakness to have a bias when examining the data.

Wild has bias, you follow in his footsteps.

Those who see the situation as black and white only, and are as rigid as those they criticize, like Bush, who is also a black and white thinker.

Why do people gravitate to black and white thinking?

Maslow did not categorize levels according to black and white thinkers versus those who can see the gray areas--as such, but I suspect if he would have, he would have placed all or nothing, black and white thinkers fairly low on the human evolutionary scale.

http://members.aol.com/menick/maslow.html

Here is a nice copy and paste to explain the sone of the psychological reasons behind black and white thinking:



by Mark Sichel, LCSW and Alicia L. Cervini

"Always" and "never," polar opposite words, tend to characterize the vocabulary of black and white thinkers. Black and white thinking means seeing the world only in terms of extremes. If things aren't "perfect," then they must be "horrible." If your child isn't "brilliant" then he must be "stupid." If you're not "fascinating" then you must be "boring." Yikes! What a tough way to live! In real-life, situations are almost always shades of gray, not black or white. Falling victim to black and white thinking tends to exacerbate depression, marital conflict, anxiety, and a host of other everyday problems. Give yourself and the ones you love a break and discover the beauty of shades of gray.

When small children are learning to use words and organize their thoughts, it is normal and expected for them to see and express their world in very black and white terms. When a young child feels they are not loved, they feel they must be hated. When a child feels his or her parents don't pay enough attention to them, that child will say, "You never pay attention to me." Developmental psychologists call this primitive thinking.

Unfortunately, under duress, adults often regress to primitive thinking. Adults are most prone to regressing to primitive thinking when they are having a hard time and feel overwhelmed by their own emotions. A regression, in psychoanalytic parlance, is a backsliding from mature functioning and thinking to immature ways of functioning and thinking. For that one moment, when the adult starts relying on the words "always" or "never," and seeing the world in black and white terms, they are slipping back to the way they saw the world as a child.

Here are some examples of people who fell prey to black and white thinking. Listen to the language that they use to express themselves:

Charlotte*, a married woman in her forties with a young child, was suffering from what is called dysthymia, or mild depression. She came into my office telling me that she never felt happy any more, that she always felt disappointed with her husband, and that she feared she would never feel good again as long as she lived. She said that she had nothing to look forward to anymore. She reported that she had always been a person who was not easily satisfied and that she only prayed that her daughter would not be like her. As Charlotte realized that her extreme language was making her situation seem worse instead of better, she learned to correct her black and white thinking. Charlotte was able to get a better handle on the events that triggered her chronic reactions of depression.

Joseph, an aspiring actor who supported himself as a carpenter, also had a problem with black and white thinking whenever he felt anxious. Despite favorable reviews in several plays and some success being cast in commercials, Joseph reported feeling overwhelming anxiety whenever he had to audition for a role. He always prepared thoroughly for his auditions, and he always became uncontrollably anxious starting a week before the audition. He was never able to do a good job in the audition, he told me, and he felt he would never overcome his anxiety. He felt sure he would always have to support himself as a carpenter. When Joseph realized that black and white thinking can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, he made an effort to see his situation for what it was: a mix of the good and the not-so-good. With his newfound appreciation for shades of gray, Joseph was much happier, less anxious and more successful in his career.

When you learn to recognize the spectrum of gray in the difficult experiences you encounter in your life, you will be better equipped to come out on top. Regression is not a foregone conclusion when you feel stressed, angry, overwhelmed, confused, or just plain fed up with another person. You CAN start to recognize when you are giving-in to black and white thinking, and then make the choice to banish those extreme thoughts in favor of healthy living.

So congratulations!!! You have learned how to "cut & paste"! Hurray

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from fairplay:



So congratulations!!! You have learned how to "cut & paste"! Hurray

Okay.

Now that we both have show the ability to cut and paste, lets discuss the contents of what has been pasted.

Let's talk about extremists, fanatics, black and white thinkers, people who make statement without any supporting evidence, nor possessing the ability to construct their own arguments.

If you think I am wrong, let's engage in a discussion, debate the issues like civilzed men.

Wild never demonstrated the ability to do so, due to his intellectual weakness.

Wild is history now, a blip on the internet of hate and extremist thinking, all in the name of "peace."

Are you say the same?

Can you demonstrate the ability to see both sides of an issue?

Can you put yourself in the other's person's shoes?

Can you see the gray?

Or is it all black and white in your world, and us versus them world, good versus evil, right versus wrong, religions fanaticsim versus freedom of religion, devoid of the ability to reach a common and middle ground of civility and reasonable discourse without the need for extreme emotionalism and jimgoism?

I look forward to open and honest dialogues, if possible, without the need to constantly quote knows sources that are ripe with bias.

For each and every one of your artilcles from the Guardian, which are op ed pieces for the most part, not news articles, I can post....I can match them one for one or easily exceed them with op ed pieces from the right. Is that really what helps us grow and change, evolve out of the primitive impluses that threaten our world?

What does that prove?

That we can create polarity betwen people?

That has already been proven innefective throughout history, leaving only those with military superiority to construct the "might makes right" world we have lived in since the beginning.

Why not try to join those who seek truth, not bias and agenda?

 

[dgabriel]

Quote from candletrader:




As for my comments being construed as racist propaganda, I find such a notion extremely offensive... it is possible to love Jewish culture and respect the teachings of the Torah and Talmud or, indeed, even be a Jew, and still be critical of, say, the Jewish lobby... in much the same way it is possible to love America and be an American citizen, and still be critical of American foreign policy...

Regards,
Candle

Oops, I meant that vile post of Goldenarm's, he put out the "list" of 10 reasons the US supports Israel on page 165 of this thread, sorry Candle. My apologies, I confused you with him/her/it.

 

[hapaboy]

Candle, traderfut, et al keep avoiding this question for which they should have an answer for:

(from a previous post):

Why, Candle, do you and the rest of your oil gang continue to avoid answering the question that IF THE US's LUST FOR OIL DOMINATES ITS FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA, WHEN HAS IT ACTUALLY GONE IN SOMEWHERE AND TAKEN THE OIL? If your thinking had any iota of truth in it, our greatest opportunity (other than after WWII when we were the sole atomic power on earth) would have been Desert Storm. Did we overrun Kuwait and take over the oil fields? Did we press our overwhelming military supremacy to overrun Iraq and take over its oil fields?

You and others have been asked that question many times on this board, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Why? You simply can't answer it because it hasn't happened.

The only reasonable statement that you and the other conspiracists can possibly make is that the war is going to be about oil in the sense of ensuring the stability of the global trade of oil (what we did in Kuwait in '91) which is vital to the global economy, not just ours, and NOT the U.S. stealing the oil. There's a big difference.

RS7, max401, and others have asked variations on this question many times on this thread ad nauseum, yet you refuse to answer it. Instead you go off on tangents, changing the subject to Israeli history for example.

Ignoring this question only further solidifies that you in fact do not have an argument to begin with.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:


Are you say the same?

Can you demonstrate the ability to see both sides of an issue?

Can you put yourself in the other's person's shoes?

Can you see the gray?

Do you really expect a coherent answer from a guy who claims Kuwait is in fact part of Iraq, thus excusing Saddam from his venture there?

 

[max401]

Quote from hapaboy:



Do you really expect a coherent answer from a guy who claims Kuwait is in fact part of Iraq, thus excusing Saddam from his venture there?

Well, in fairness to Iraq, Kuwait was part of that country a long time ago. However, there is a doctrine of laches, which in legal terms is "the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of 'legal ambush.' " I think the basic premise would apply. It's been too long a time to now complain or take action to reclaim. Theory of adverse possession would also apply.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from max401:

Well, in fairness to Iraq, Kuwait was part of that country a long time ago. However, there is a doctrine of laches, which in legal terms is "the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of 'legal ambush.' " I think the basic premise would apply. It's been too long a time to now complain or take action to reclaim. Theory of adverse possession would also apply.

Yup. If England were to attack us now on the basis that we used to be a part of their Empire, who in their right mind would claim such an attack was justifiable? Wait, err, probably a few people on this thread would......

Furthermore, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - now THAT Candle, traderfut, et al, was indeed all about the oil, baby!

 

[rs7]

wow...my apologies to all for my last post about 10 pages ago. I made some reference to Israel, and of course that resulted in a barrage of cut and paste "history" from traderfut.

TF, my man......find some new sources!

As Optional777 says, and as I myself have said, things are not black and white. Why bother posting the same opinions (from far left wing sources) repeatedly. I mean not only the same general point of view, but the actual same articles repeatedly?

If I did read them, and disagreed, do you think posting them repeatedly and getting me to re-read them (I don't, and neither does anyone else) will eventually get me to change my mind?

We all know how you feel....Israel is a terrorist state. Israel has oppresses the Palestinians. Israel is responsible for massacres and unspeakable atrocities. How many times do we need to hear this? How many times do we need to hear how Begin and Sharon and all the rest (except Golda Meir, who was knitting sweaters in Wisconson at the time) were murderers? Terrorists?

The Israelis displaced the Palestinians from their garden of Eden (or is Paradise the more appropriate word?) and for the past 55 years have suffered because of this. Israel was always a green and fertile oasis in the desert. The Jews had nothing to do with it. So that is why the Palestinians need to "get back to the garden" (Joni Mitchell).

How about a bit of counterpoint? Why do we never ever hear about how the Jewish refugees from a war torn Europe where 6,000,000 of their people were murdered with no chance of resistance, and virtually no protection from the good people of Europe came and fought for a place in which they could feel safe and secure? Why is it that it is justifiable for palestinians to kill Israeli citizens, but when "Israeli terrorists" (they preferred to be considered "freedom fighters" but who doesn't?) bombed a hotel in protest of the public hangings of their fellow "freedom fighters", they were not justified?

I do not and will not defend as justifiable the actions that these "freedom fighters" took. Their tactics were severe and in many cases atrocious. But they did win their independence. So at least give them credit for being successful and efficient "terrorists". They accomplished their goal. They have a country. And it has flourished.

Now the "Palestinians" want "their" land back. Why should they have tried to build a nation when all they had to do was sit back and wait for their "right of return"?

I can't make these points any more. I am getting bored. And you should be too.

The arab people that left what is now Israel and now call themselves "Palestinians" could have done for themselves if their arab brothers had supported them at all. You say that they were all displaced from Israel in 1948. This is just not so. Some were, certainly. But the majority left with the promise from Egypt and Syria and Jordan and Iraq and Lebanon, and all the rest of he arab nations that a swift end would be in store for the State of Israel. (Amazingly, the arabs that chose to stay are very happy Israeli citizens). On the very day that Israel celebrated their independence, they were attacked with only one arab objective: Complete annihilation of Israel. On that very same day, the "palestinians" rejected the homeland provision of the British mandate to divide "palestine". They had their opportunity to have a country and, predictably, they did not want what they could have. Only what they could not. Sort of like my brother when he was 4 and I was 6.

So there is more than one way to look at this situation. TF, I empathize with the plight of today's palestinians. I sincerely do. I hope they get a real country to call their own. I hope they can manage to create a free and democratic Palestinian state. It would certainly be a welcome change for the Arab world. A place where any Arab person would be welcome. Just as in Israel, where any Jewish person is welcome.

However, I see really one major problem with this. And it ain't coming from Israel. What Arab nation would want a democracy established in their midst? How will that affect the social structure of the nations that would have to border a free arab state? How would the powers that be in these surrounding arab nations deal with a country that offers refuge to any arab that wants to live in a democracy? Hard to imagine!

TF...give some solutions instead of complaints. Talk about the future instead of the past. The past has seen far too much bloodshed and accomplished zero for the Palestinians. Arafat....you say he is not a terrorist. I say he is. You say Sharon is a terrorist, and I don't disagree. You say Begin was a terrorist, and I don't disagree. But the past is over. Today a nation exists in part because of the efforts of Israeli "terrorists" (if you like the term). But still, there is no nation called Palestine. So maybe you are right. Maybe Arafat is not a terrorist. Just not an ineffective statesman. Or maybe I am right and Arafat is a terrorist. Just an ineffective terrorist.

Give solutions. What do you suggest? Other than Isreal just committing national suicide?

Germany had a government that was recognized as legitimate. This government warred with other countries. It committed unspeakable atrocities. Yet the German people were not and never will be driven from their homeland. Now you accuse Israel of being a fascist state. And of being guilty of massacres and other atrocities in the past. (I contend that today they fight for thier very survival only...but that is my opinion...far different than yours) Does this mean that Israel should cease to exist? And it's citizens cast out of the land they worked to build and into the sea? Because this is the official policy, to this day, of nations like Syria and Iraq and Libya. And in truth, still the agenda of Saudi Arabia and really all of the rest of the arab middle east.

Which should answer the recurring question that this thread has seen. Why does the US back Israel? The answer is simple. And it is also very telling when taken in context of the "war for oil" nonsense we hear here. Israel has no oil. Israel does have democracy. And so we are on the same side politically, philosophically and morally with Israel.

Israel exists in great part because of the shameful treatment of the Jews in Europe during the holocaust. And this is the right thing. Morality counts!

And morality counts for the palestinians too. Give them a competent leader with not only a desire for peace, but the guts to really accept peace in the face of the displeasure of the other arab nations, and Palestine will be a country very soon. And assuredly with more assistance from Israel than can be expected from the nations of their so called "arab brothers". The very same "arab brothers" that refused to let the palestinians be assimilated into their countries. The ones that put them in refugee camps instead of in their societies.

Peace,
rs7

 

[max401]

TF, why is that those from the middle east are almost universally known as liars? Why is lying a part of that culture?