?

Log in

No account? Create an account
sold as a novelty only [userpic]

Republicans are the very essence of post-modernisim

May 12th, 2004 (10:46 am)

One of the fundamental aspects of Post-Modernism is a lack of objective truth. In Post-Modernism the hard Modernist lines between truth and lies are blured until there are neither truth nor lies; no facts, no fallacies. Modernism can be represented by a stark contrast between black and white while Post-Modernism is an endless field of gray.

So what does this have to do with Republicans...

On the surface, it would seem that Republicans would be more in line with Modernist ideals. A strong, clear deliniation between right and wrong... Isn't that what Republicans stand for? Yes, but this Modernist facade belies the underlying Post-Modernism of their positions.

Every Republican I've argued with has stated they believe the photographs of Iraqi prisioner abuse are receiving too much media attention because "It's not that big of a deal."

This blows my mind. I simply cannot comprehend how someone can believe that it's "not that big of a deal" for Americans to torture prisoners. They say "they treat our prisoners badly, why aren't we hearing about that on the news!!!"

I point out the terrible, wide reaching effect of the prisoner abuse scandal. I show how the scandal has horribly damaged American credibility and endagered our troops and mission in Iraq; all things Republicans claim to uphold. And then, to my ultimate consternation, they say "well, you have your opinion and I have mine."

Opinion? I thought we were talking about facts? Logic even! Any conversation I have with a Republican essentially boils down to them simply disagreeing with my "opinion."

"What about the FACTS?" I say. They just shrug their shoulders and say "It's your opinion."

For Republicans, facts == opinions.

me> No WMDs have been found in Iraq.
them> That's your opinion.
me> Sadam was never connected to Al Qaeda terrorists.
them> That's your opinion.
me> Iraq was not a threat to the United States.
them> That's your opinion.

me> ARRRGGH!@#!@!$!@#$!

Comments

Posted by: squid porn and emotional abuse (ttam)
Posted at: May 12th, 2004 11:00 am (UTC)


I know you are but what am I?!

Posted by: persona non grata (sublies)
Posted at: May 12th, 2004 11:03 am (UTC)


Four more years!

Posted by: Eggbut Snaffle (rhodamine)
Posted at: May 12th, 2004 11:14 am (UTC)



i dont know why, but that photo has been lurking in my files forever.

Posted by: daveclay (daveclay)
Posted at: May 12th, 2004 01:05 pm (UTC)

Since I'm in such a philosophical mood....

In reverse order:
Iraw was never a threat to the US.

The truth of this statement depends upon the definition of threat. One definition is an expression of intention to inflict damange or harm. I'd say with a decent amount of confidence that Iraq would have (at least) expressed intention to inflict damage to the US. I'd consider it a truth that Iraq-US relations were pretty awful, and that Iraq would, if they had capabilities, threaten the US. Another definition of threat is "an indication of impending danger or harm", but we'll wait till #1 for that.

Saddam was never connected to Al Queda.

Well, there IS evidence that Al Queda operated in Iraq, and some evidence that Saddam knew Al Queda was operating in Iraq. Was Saddam connected to Al Queda? I'd say yes, he was, based upon the evidence, but I'd also concede the fact that the US was connected to Al Queda as well. Didn't Nixon and Reagan give weapons to Osama? Haven't we had ties to terrorist states in the past and connections to terrorist leaders in the past? The real question is whether Saddam supported Al Queda. But again, the question of definition of "support" comes into quesiton. And was it secret, in-the-back-of-my-mind support, public support, financial support, or military support? I'd also concede that Saddam probably secretly supported, or at least didn't mind what Al Queda was doing. However, there is very little evidence of financial or military support by Saddam of Al Queda.

And #1:
No WMD have been found in Iraq.

WMD have been found in Iraq. Back in the early 90's, late 80's. Have we found any since 2002? No. No WMDs have been found since 9/11 even. The statement "No WMDs have been found in Iraq" is false, since there were in the past, but the statement "No WMDs have been found in Iraq since 9/11, since Bush wanted to go to war" is absolutely false, and is a fact. You can say "evidence has been gathered that indicate Iraq possibly had WMD since 9/11" is true, but that's where we get into the kind of rhetoric circles of Funeral Director Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld is the ultimate post modernist. And he's been caught at it as well. He likes to make false statements, then go back when the statement's falsehood is proved and reconstruct his statements into part truths, point-of-view arguments, and typically falls into the standard de facto "I don't recall, senator" cop out.

I wonder what's going on with Afghanikitty.




Posted by: A Prime Example of Fine German Engineering (girlvixxxen)
Posted at: May 12th, 2004 01:33 pm (UTC)

I *heart* Afganikitty.

Although Male Secretary is pretty f-in' funny, too.

Posted by: sold as a novelty only (j03)
Posted at: May 12th, 2004 02:36 pm (UTC)

in your order:

I didn't say Sadam was never a threat. I said Sadam was not a threat (at the time of our decision to invade).

The definition of threat that should be clear from my sentence since I am referring to a country and not an indication or danger, is: "one that is regarded as a possible danger, a menace." I guess you could argue that the President did regard Sadam as a threat. However, what was the evidence of this? Was the evidence we had sufficient to justify risking the lives of American troops.
You correctly pointed out that his evidence is related to WMDs. However, I point out a different possible scenario below:

2) There's evidence Al Qaeda is operating all over the middle east, africa, europe, asia and the Americas. Some evidence of some possible Al Qaeda in Iraq is like saying there's posible evidence of sand in Iraq so we're going to invade. The fact is that Sadam was constantly crushing Islamic extremists in his own country. Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden hated Sadam almost as much as they hate the rulers of Saudi Arabia. I have yet to see any actual evidence of Sadam having any connection whatsoever with Al Qaeda. At any rate, the implication that Sadam was in any way involved with 9/11 was a flat out lie.

3) I'm sorry I didn't specify a time frame. But I assumed the reader would realize that I was talking about the justification for the current war in Iraq, not the state of afairs 15 years ago. NO WMDs HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ SINCE THE US OCCUPATION BEGAN A YEAR AGO.

So why are we in Iraq?

From http://www.michaelparenti.org/

With 113 billion barrels at $35 a barrel, Iraq's supply comes to almost $4 trillion dollars. But not a drop of it belongs to the US oil cartel; it is all state owned. Baghdad has offered exploratory concessions to France, China, Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia. But with a US takeover of Iraq and a new puppet regime in place, all these agreements may be subject to cancellation. We may soon witness the biggest oil grab in the history of Third World colonialism by US oil companies aided and abetted by the US government.

One thing that US leaders were interested in doing with Iraqi oil---given the glut and slumping price of crude during the late 1990s---was keep it off the market for awhile. As the London Financial Times (24 February 1998) reported, oil prices fell sharply because the agreement between the United Nations and Iraq that would allow Baghdad to sell oil on the world market "could lead to much larger volumes of Iraqi crude oil competing for market shares." The San Francisco Chronicle (22 February 1998) headlined its story "IRAQ'S OIL POSES THREAT TO THE WEST." In fact, Iraqi crude posed no threat to "the West" only to Western oil investors. If Iraq were able to reenter the international oil market, the Chronicle reported, "it would devalue British North Sea oil, undermine American oil production and---much more important---it would destroy the huge profits which the United States [read, US oil companies] stands to gain from its massive investment in Caucasian oil production, especially in Azerbajian." Direct control and ownership of Iraqi oil will be the surest way to keep it off the world market when the price is not right, and the surest way to profit from its sale when oil prices rise substantially---as they have since the 1990s.


The US oil industry will very gladly pay $100 billion of my (tax) money and with hundreds of American soldiers lives to improve their corporate bottom line. The Bush and Cheny familys stand to make millions.

Thanks for the debate Dave. I need to sharpen my skills against these MORANS.

Posted by: stephany (increasepeace)
Posted at: May 12th, 2004 05:27 pm (UTC)

Every Republican I've argued with has stated they believe the photographs of Iraqi prisioner abuse are receiving too much media attention because "It's not that big of a deal."

this is just mind shattering to me. i go through the same experience with kids day in and day out. and i love how today on the front page of the Sentinel there was a large story of the ONE American who was beheaded -- a kid in my class was freaking out, but the catch is, less than a week ago, he agreed that the iraqis dying is "not that big of a deal" so annoying.

Posted by: sold as a novelty only (j03)
Posted at: May 12th, 2004 06:16 pm (UTC)
word

It's impossible to defeat them with any sort of logical argument since they refuse to follow the rules. Arguing with them is as productive as fighting with a Tar Baby. I need to spend some time studying their post-modernist tactics and come up with a new strategy. Unfortunatly Uncle Remus' couldn't get Brer Rabbit unstuck from the Tar Baby.. so no help there.

8 Read Comments