Difference between revisions of "Talk:George W. Bush"
(summary of the points; counterpoints next) |
(→Debates: saving in case of crash) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: {{arg.point|key=1|This is a war, and waging war requires some curtailment of freedom.}} | : {{arg.point|key=1|This is a war, and waging war requires some curtailment of freedom.}} | ||
:: {{arg.point|key=1a|We are at war.}} | :: {{arg.point|key=1a|We are at war.}} | ||
| + | ::: {{arg.counter|key=1a-1|Can you call it a war when the enemy isn't a country or even an organized group?}} | ||
| + | :::: {{arg.counter|key=1a-1.1|If it's not a war on some recognized geopolitical or cultural entity, do the usual caveats about "being at war" – specifically that freedoms must be curtailed – even apply?}} | ||
| + | :::: {{arg.counter|key=1a-1.2|How do we know that Bush hasn't shaped his response to the situation specifically so that the label "war" could be applied, allowing him to make bad decisions and behave corruptly? Do we trust Bush to make "wartime" judgment calls without any accountability? ''See [[#Is Bush trustworthy?]] for further discussion.'' | ||
| + | ::: {{arg.counter|key=1a-2|We shouldn't be at war.}} | ||
| + | :::: {{arg.counter|key=1a-2.1|War is an inappropriate response to this situation.}} | ||
| + | ::::: {{arg.counter|key=1a.2.1.1|You don't attack the Mafia by invading Chicago, destroying its infrastructure, and getting all the locals ticked off at you. Similarly, you don't destroy terrorism with an army; it takes ''intelligence'', in both senses of the word, and [[Bush II administration|the Bush people]] have shown over and over again that what mental powers they do possess are mostly devoted to the intelligent design of sweetheart deals for their supporters – and consolidating their power through subterfuge, misdirection, and highly questionable legal theory. ''See [[#Is Bush trustworthy?]] for further discussion.''}} | ||
| + | :::::: {{arg.counter|key=1a.2.1.1.1a|That situation was worse than now, and yet there was no significant curtailment of freedom.}} | ||
| + | ::::::: This was a ''substantially worse'' situation than what we have now with the [[Islamofascism|Islamic terrorists]] – people were being attacked on American soil, by a well-funded enemy who ''looked'' like us and even (mostly) had US citizenship – so there was no quick-and-dirty way to profile them for detention, as we are now doing. City governments were being corrupted and infiltrated by Mafia operatives, people were being gunned down in broad daylight, businesses were being burned. | ||
| + | ::::::: And yet, as far as I know, there was no significant curtailment of freedom in the fight against these terrorists. (Significantly, they largely arose as a major threat ''because'' of a curtailment of freedom – Prohibition. On a related note, the rampant corruption of the [[US occupation of Iraq]] is having a similar effect over there.) | ||
:: {{arg.point|key=1b|Waging war requires some curtailment of freedom.}} | :: {{arg.point|key=1b|Waging war requires some curtailment of freedom.}} | ||
: {{arg.point|key=2|Bush's abridgments of civil liberties thus far are at least ''within reason'', whether or not you agree on the details.}} | : {{arg.point|key=2|Bush's abridgments of civil liberties thus far are at least ''within reason'', whether or not you agree on the details.}} | ||
Revision as of 23:44, 12 September 2007
Debates
Have Bush's actions in the wake of 9/11 been justified?
Bush's actions in the wake of 9/11 have been justified.
- <linkedimage>
wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 1 This is a war, and waging war requires some curtailment of freedom.
- <linkedimage>
wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 1a We are at war.
1a-1 Can you call it a war when the enemy isn't a country or even an organized group?
- 1a-1.1 If it's not a war on some recognized geopolitical or cultural entity, do the usual caveats about "being at war" – specifically that freedoms must be curtailed – even apply?
- {{arg.counter|key=1a-1.2|How do we know that Bush hasn't shaped his response to the situation specifically so that the label "war" could be applied, allowing him to make bad decisions and behave corruptly? Do we trust Bush to make "wartime" judgment calls without any accountability? See #Is Bush trustworthy? for further discussion.
- 1a-2 We shouldn't be at war.
- 1a-2.1 War is an inappropriate response to this situation.
- 1a.2.1.1 You don't attack the Mafia by invading Chicago, destroying its infrastructure, and getting all the locals ticked off at you. Similarly, you don't destroy terrorism with an army; it takes intelligence, in both senses of the word, and the Bush people have shown over and over again that what mental powers they do possess are mostly devoted to the intelligent design of sweetheart deals for their supporters – and consolidating their power through subterfuge, misdirection, and highly questionable legal theory. See #Is Bush trustworthy? for further discussion.
- 1a.2.1.1.1a That situation was worse than now, and yet there was no significant curtailment of freedom.
- This was a substantially worse situation than what we have now with the Islamic terrorists – people were being attacked on American soil, by a well-funded enemy who looked like us and even (mostly) had US citizenship – so there was no quick-and-dirty way to profile them for detention, as we are now doing. City governments were being corrupted and infiltrated by Mafia operatives, people were being gunned down in broad daylight, businesses were being burned.
- And yet, as far as I know, there was no significant curtailment of freedom in the fight against these terrorists. (Significantly, they largely arose as a major threat because of a curtailment of freedom – Prohibition. On a related note, the rampant corruption of the US occupation of Iraq is having a similar effect over there.)
- <linkedimage>
wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 1b Waging war requires some curtailment of freedom.
- <linkedimage>
wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 2 Bush's abridgments of civil liberties thus far are at least within reason, whether or not you agree on the details.
i.e. it's difficult to judge if the current war justifies the curtailments thus far, so why not grant Bush the benefit of the doubt?- <linkedimage>
wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 2a We still have far more freedoms than European countries do, so we don't really have any cause for complaint.
- <linkedimage>
wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 2b Some increase in surveillance powers at least seems reasonable.
- <linkedimage>
wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 3 Nobody has been seriously harmed by these curtailments so far.
- <linkedimage>
wikipage=Issuepedia:Debaticons tooltip=claim that is the main subject of a debate img_src=Image:Arrow-button-rt-20px.png img_alt=right arrow debaticon </linkedimage> 3a The potential for abuse is there, but Bush would not intentionally abuse the power he has obtained.
Notes
#politics 2005-07-22
<TheWoozle> Would you consider "pro-big-business" to be a positive or negative side of Republicanism?
<TheWoozle> And is pro-big-businessness a Conservative trait too? I wouldn't necessarily *think* so, but maybe I'm confusing Conservative and Libertarian.