Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

Hi Bob, welcome to the community :-)

I think you`re right that Americans have the right and obligation to question all things governance. We should question the legitimacy of the politicians and administration.

But to question, debate, argue, and dissent ought to mean a rational, reasoned, and thoughtful process.

Today, the polarization between liberals and conservatives is nearly total. As a conservative, it seems to me that liberals prefer to shout, not argue. Not always, but generally. It also seems to me that liberals would prefer if conservatives didn`t argue at all and were removed from the equation.

That being the case, reasonable conservatives and liberals can, and do often have reasoned discussion. Unfortunately, we`re at a point where not many reasonable people are left.

To address only one of your points, where you propose there were no terrorists in Iraq until the US got there. I wonder where you get your information? How do you gauge the accuracy of that information?

Conversely, how can we determine the accuracy of the information telling us that there were terrorists in Iraq, or WMDs?

What all of us are facing, liberals and conservatives, is the breakdown in credibility across the board. We have almost no legitimate news reporting anymore, and not a whole lot of objective facts to examine about anything.

Because we have to delve into separate reports and investigations on our own, the "facts" and resulting conclusions we draw, all are subject to rejection. "I don`t believe that."

And so we`re pretty well on an irrevocable course. The overall society is left with only direct, empirical evidence to deal with. We`re wiping out the whole concept of analysis, prediction, assessments and reasoned supposition.

That means we`re left with, "I`ll believe it when I see it." Empiricism.

Hi Craig and thank you for your warm welcome. The terrorist issue is based on known intelligence from the U.S. and Israel  who had been keeping a close eye on Saddam for years. It is also reasonable to accept the belief that a dictater such as Saddam would not tolerate any challenge to his ultimate authority. The question comes to mind is this: was there less violence in Iraq before we arrived? Most would say that while Saddams reign of terror was most certainly violent, it does not come close to the deaths we are seeing now. To be sure, I whole heartedly agree on the idea that we have become so seperated and distrusting in our leadership that it has resulted in partisan bickering and very rigded party lines, which is not a good thing. The two party( or more) system was designed for healthy debate, which would be a good thing. Sadly, it has broken down to kindergarten antics from both sides. It was a pleasure talking with you craig and I appreciate the points you brought up.

Regards,

Bob Layte

Gentlemen, first, allow me to say that healthy debate and the exchange of ideas is the element that makes our country unique and gave birth to our nation. You all represent the American ideal in that regard.

With regard to one`s questioning of the government, I believe it to be our highest duty to do so. I believe that we must question and watch closely the activities of our government. Our lack or desire to do so in the past has contributed to the current climate.

With regard to the violence in Iraq, there is always more violence in a time of war. Germany was "peaceful" and there was less violence in Germany (unless, of course you were a Jew) than there was until the allied invasion. But make no mistake, our efforts in Iraq were clearly designed to centralize a threat that knew no borders. Afghanistan as well. We had to develop a strategy that would bring Al Qaeda and the Taliban to a centralized front, and this we achieved. Of course there was less violence, but for who and at what cost.

With regard to the two party system, it has become stagnate to the point that one can scarce determine the differences between Republican and Democrat. Instead they have become a system of elitists who will do just about anything to maintain power, influence and pad their pockets.

It is a shame that our men and women in uniform often find themselves in the middle of partisan bickering and debate when they, indeed, sacrifice their lives for a cause greater than themselves. This has been the sad reality since the start of this nation.

The War in Iraq will be debated for generations to come. The threat of state sponsored terrorism continues to be a concern for American foreign policy and while North Korea and Iran are the current hot topics of intelligence and global security concern, they are by no means the last. We have not heard the last from Syria, and surely others in the region, who will continue to sponsor terrorism and tout their rhetoric to blow Israel off the face of the earth.

Where ever there are governments and organizations created by men, the inevitable elements of corruption, terror, violence and tyranny exist. Our country is no less immune, which is why questioning our government and its policies is not simply a good thing...it is a duty of every citizen to do so.

Our men and women in uniform are the best damn kids in the world. For whatever ills currently plague our country, and for all of the negatives we face in the economic and political life of our nation, our soldiers are the one element upon which our nation has always been able to rely.

Gentlemen, those of you who joined this discussion could teach Washington a thing or two about healthy dialogue, the differences of opinion and how to communicate those differences in clear, open and well-intentioned terms.

It is always a pleasure to listen, to read your posts and to see the familiar faces and names in our round table here. While we may find ourselves differing with one another on policy, we do so with passion, honest expression and the realization that in the final analysis we all do so as Americans.

Will Griffith
http://www.griffithcorp.com/



-------------------------

Will Griffith
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

Hi Bob,
You`ve said above, in response to my question as to how you know what you know:

The problem all of us are having---the entire (thinking) country---is that both liberals and conservatives are quoting alleged facts. You say you have "known intelligence that..." and conservatives also have known intelligence indicating the exact opposite.

It reminds me of criminal trials where psychologists or psychiatrists are brought in as expert witnesses. The defense and prosecution both have as many experts, highly credentialed, who say and prove exactly the opposite propositions.

None of us actually are part of the CIA or NSA. If we were, we couldn`t talk about much of anything. So in a complete disagreement over US actions around the world, what can we do?

Nothing.

The only way to deal with totally opposing arguments that each seem to be based on real facts, thought, reason, and data, is to walk away from the argument. And try to figure out a third viewpoint, if at all possible.

The conservative "characterization" of Saddam`s reign of terror would support a conclusion that current violence in Iraq is far less than what was going on. The liberal characterization is just the opposite.

That`s our problem----characterization. We`re getting confused data, conflicting information, and all we can to is personally interpret whatever we`re being told. The result isn`t a fact, it`s a characterization.

What do we do? How can conservatives and liberals possibly come to some sort of reconciliation?

I don`t think it`s possible, really. All we can do is play out the game and reality will finally adjudicate who`s right. And that`s a sad state of affairs, as far as I`m concerned.

Bob,
Anyone, myself included, can determine quickly whether or not someone is trying to be willfully antagonistic. There are plenty of venues for flames and screeching, and it`s nice to every once in awhile have a reasonable discussion.

From my conservative perspective, speaking of the WMDs, I suspect there were timing issues involved. It`s true that by the time the US and UN went into Iraq, they found almost nothing. But the question is whether or not any such weapons of mass destruction EVER were present.

How often do we see similar situations where the police, acting on valid information, storm a place said to contain many weapons. They break the door down, search, and find nothing.

One position is to say that because no weapons exist at the moment, no weapons ever existed. Therefore, the police had "no right" to storm the location. In fact, the main reason for a search warrant is to examine the validity of the information leading up to the search.

All sorts of circumstantial evidence indicates there were such WMDs in Iraq. But it`s circumstantial. Yes, if we had found nuclear stockpiles or biological weapons it would`ve become empirical evidence.

My point here, and I see we agree is that it`s a terrible shame that we, the people are stuck with only circumstantial evidence. Since we have no tangible proof, what do we do?

I`d hate to see everyone say that if there`s no physical proof, then no criminal should ever again be convicted only on circumstantial evidence. And that opens the door to the role of logic and analysis in life and decision-making processes.