Originally posted by GavintzuI don't think people are "stupid", per se. Noam Chomsky once made a great point about the supposedly stupid citizens who can't run a democracy -- "have you ever heard a sports call in show? Have you heard the arguments and reasoning callers use to defend their positions? Have you heard the obscure and complex statistics they have memorized?"
It's true, I think. Pick anyone at random off the street and they will have an area of expertise, even if it is the history of satanic heavy metal bands or whether the Cowboys should have traded Troy Aikman after the 1999 season. Pretty much every human being has interests, and they pursue those interests whether as a hobby or as a career or as an obsession.
Could it be said that athletics and most forms of entertainment are a diversionary tactic? I know that sounds conspiratorial, but if everybody's busy watching the Super Bowl and doesn't pay attention to the Supreme Court making wacky decisions like not requiring prosecutors to reveal evidence that proves a defendant's innocence, well then.....
BucsFan, liked the post. One thing I never understood about the showy patriots was the classic, "If you don't love America, then get the hell out!" argument. If I don't love something about America, or the way that the current government's doing business, why should I have to leave? Aren't I constitutionally protected in my bitching? Wouldn't it be less American to attempt to squelch my right of free speech by deporting me?
(edited by asteroidboy on 30.12.02 0923) "My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex "Was he no-selling?" - Me
Originally posted by TheBucsFanSo, because of America's plan to prepare to attack Iraq, if Iraqis feel threatened and drop bombs on our country, they will be justified and you will not be upset, yes?
I think that vindicates my argument."
No, it proves gaps in your logic. Tell me, how would you react if tomorrow Iraq dropped bombs on Washington, claiming they feel threatened by recent anti-Iraq development? I doubt you would shrug it off and say "oh well, they have the right to do that." But for some reason you are willing to give your country that silly logic.
Yes, I know we don't want to start the whole Iraq thing, but I think one new point must be made: It depends what your definition of "attacking first" is. Here's the problem...History.
We're speaking about this Iraq/US thing as if we've never had a problem with them before. The US wants to attack first because of HISTORY. Iraq has been known to be sneaky, hiding weapons, etc. in the past. The US feels that this is the equivelant of "attacking first". We can't take chances with people we KNOW to be backhanded. It's like a game of who's gonna flinch first. Iraq sees the US as the ones with the evil history, and hence they must defend themselves. WE, however, see this as "attacking first".
The point of this? Well, we have too much history with Iraq. It's beyond "well they attacked first, we're just defending". It's about how we can bring peace to the situation, or how we must go to war. And that's the real problem - not "who started it".
I think in fairness you should include this relevant piece of the article you linked to: which of course makes it one hundred percent misleading to infer that he made his statement in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in London.