Poll: Bush a bigger threat to peace than Saddam

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by peter2002, Mar 11, 2003.

  1. peter2002 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #1
    The British public sees President Bush as a greater threat to world peace than Iraq's Saddam Hussein, a poll published on Tuesday showed.

    The poll, commissioned by Channel 4 Television, asked 1,000 people whether they believed Bush was a greater threat to world peace than Saddam. Forty-five percent agreed while 38 percent disagreed.

    Two-thirds of those polled said it would be wrong to attack Iraq while inspectors felt they still had a useful job to do.


    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030311/pl_nm/iraq_britain_poll_dc_1
     
  2. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #2
    And I agree w/the 2/3 that said, (paraphasing)"If the inspectors are allowed by Iraq to do their job there should be no war." But as to date I don't think the inspectors are being allowed to do their job.


    Lethal
     
  3. mymemory macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #3
    I do think Bush excuse is terrorism, the real objective is:
    1. Oil security.
    2. Improve the US economy (some how).
    3. May be eliminate terrorism in Irak but that would take more years.

    The point is that, if he want all that there are some other pleaces to go and other ways to proceed better than the Irak case.

    Well, politics never work for the people or by the people any way.

    And if Bush desobay the UN pronunciation he really would be a good example of "dictatorship". Bush or the US would do not have a face to say that Fidel Castro or Chavez are dictators.

    So, what would be the end of the UN is the US doesn't obay them?

    BTWm, dictator is not the actual word but it is something similar to what I mean.
     
  4. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #4
    There are a lot of fools and idiots born everyday! imagine a world where Iran has the BOMB, Iraq has the BOMB, N. Korea has the BOMB, and any other crazy tyrant has the BOMB. Is this the world we want our children growing up in? Hell no it aint and what George is trying to do is what should have been done years ago but we had a president worried about his next BJ instead of protecting us and the world from these crazy lunatics. Saddam is a bigger threat and if we dont do something soon all of these other crazy countries will be to.
     
  5. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #5
    You forgot about all of the BOMBs in the US.
     
  6. rebscb macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #6
    Many Americans, and definitely a majority of citizens of other nations flatly do not understand much of anything about America's legal system (Constitution) and our modern history within the world community.

    First, America's sovereignty and the relationship between the people and the government are based upon the Constitution of the United States. This is a document that makes America distinct from every other nation in the world. It begins with a preamble know at the Bill of Rights. In fact the very document that establishes our government - and therefore - the fact of American sovereignty in the world - begins with a statement on "rights" for our citizenry that "cannot" every be denied nor infringed upon. These rights are stated first, before the document even begins to delineate the powers of the government.

    To all of you who criticize our nation: please look at the explicit lack of any rights for Iraqi citizens other than to be used as "tools" of the state and denied such rights - often in the form of "death."

    With this in mind, America owes no political, nor legal subservience to any global or regional authority. I put forth to you now that as an American citizen, I will never support the subordination of our Constitution to the UN or any future form of "global government."

    This is not to say that America will not cooperate with the UN and other nations when it is in our national interest to do so. However, in many times in our modern history, it is "not" in our interest to do so.

    Nations have no friends: nations do have interests in power relationships with other nations. There is always competition for power and influence in world events. It is much like gravity in physics: both simply "are" and as such define the limitations of human behavior and activity.

    As a nation - with self-interests - in modern hisotry, America is the only dominating power that has "gone home" after defeating and/or defending other nations. Yes, we continue to have presences in other nations - again due to our interests - but we have not occupied, nor bent other nations wills to our own.

    France is a very good example of this point: France, after our defense of their nation in WWII, has evolved in such a way to where they can and do wish to challenge our power today. We defended their democracy that has allowed them to now try to allign the world against us.

    This illustrates the above point that nations do not have friends - they have interests.

    The UN was never meant to be a "government" and today it is not a government. It is merely a forum for discussion; exactly like what is occuring in New York today. This forum does not guarantee perfect agreement ever, and indeed more disagreement has occured in this forum over time than agreement.

    From America's viewpoint (as a sovereign nation), France, Germany, Russia, China, and many other nations do not have our best interests at heart, nor does America expect this of them. We expect the kind of behavior that they are engaged in as a fundamental reality of national interests in power contests. So be it: this is the nature of global politics.

    I welcome all statements about my country - positive and critical in nature - however, I kindly ask that persons take the time to read our history and our Constitution in light of how we legally and morally engage the global community. If we perceive our safety as endangered, as other nations perceive there safety endagered at times, a sovereign nation can and often will operate independent of what other nations would like to see. So be it, for this is reality.

    Hard decisions must be made in this world and President Bush (Republican), as his predecessor, President Truman (Democrat) must weigh the information that he has at any given time with regard to unleashing military power.

    Lastly, in regard to the criticism that we have little evidence of Iraq as an imminent danger, or that we have not been attacked by them yet (or via a terrorist proxy), I remind you of December 7th, 1941 - Pearl Harbor. Do you think that if America believed the Japanese to be of sufficient threat that we would've waited to be hit by the Japanese navy? Despite conspiracy theories that indeed we did, no American President would allow Americans to die in such a way.

    This is ultimately the difference between American and many European nations. They will accept a certain number of attacks and deaths on their own soil as the price of doing nasty business in nasty places (Iraq). America IS NOT Europe by design. We rejected their ways and their ideas about life and liberty at the time of our revolution. This is why we will defy them now. Their ways are not our ways, and we have legitimate differences with the French at this time.

    There will certainly be costs to Europe and America down the road, however, American lives, sovereignty, and especially our individual rights are not entrusted to those European nations... and I hope that they will never be so.
     
  7. mymemory macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #7
    About the children... I would go that far, this is not the world I want to, period!

    Now, there is something called "United Nations", if that institution doesn't work there is the problem.

    But let me add a little extra for you to know a bit of your fantastic leader.

    Venezuela if financing Alqaeda, we have training instalations in our islands. We are souronded by cubans in what would be our White House, our president is communist and give free oil to Cuba. Now, the US is not taking care of the problem (that is closer and easier to resolve than Irak if terrorism is the real problem) buecause they (the United States) just got 2 oil instalations (a consesition) in our territory 3 weeks ago, since then the US is leaving the terrorist venezuelan problem alone for a little more time.

    Tell me if the US or Bush problem is terrorism. There is a lot of it but it is not the crusial point.

    BTW, the news about Venezuela in the US are the 2% of what really is goin on here, for some (economic) reason the US is going towards Irak first. Well, even our own media is not covering what they should down here.

    If every body has a bomb is because some one want to.
     
  8. leprechaunG4 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
  9. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #9
    Strict constructionism is one way to justify our current form of "diplomacy". But not one I adhere to.

    The Constitution is a beautiful document. It's what made it possible for our country to develop so rapidly and well after our break with England. It was the right document for the job...200 years ago.

    The framers wrote a document appropriate for 1776, but the world today is different is so many fundamental ways that it's a joke to try to apply it now.

    Furthermore, the Bill of Rights is actually a collection of the first 10 amendments that were ratified in 1791. The preamble is a completely different part of the text. Here it is, in its entirety:
     
  10. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
  11. leprechaunG4 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    #11
    mymemmory - first of all it's Iraq, not Irak. Next are these unfounded comments:
    1. Oil security? You do realize ofcourse that France and Russia have much more of an investment in Iraqi oil than the US. Hence the opposition to action in Iraq. Oil security is not what motivates the US it is what motivates our oponents in the security council.

    2. Imporve the economy, some how? Nice argument. Some how is always the nail in the coffin isn't it. In fact it has been an anti-war argument that'd be bad for the economy, now you want to tell us it is simply a ploy to improve the economy. Quite a contradiction now isn't it?

    3. And doing nothing will eliminate terrorism quicker?
     
  12. leprechaunG4 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    #12
    Whether you agree with the constitution in application is not the issue. The great part about rebscb's post was that he pointed out that the UN is not some world government that America must adhere to. He also did a great job of pointing out it is a collection of nations striving for their own interests. He made some very good points, even if he might have made some errors about the bill of rights, you must admit that.
     
  13. Maclicious macrumors regular

    Maclicious

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle
    #13
    Right, sure, no nation who is part of the UN signed a document that allows the UN to dictate it's policy. But, the UN represents the leadership of the world population. And whether Iraq deserves to be taken down or not, the real issue that is developing is that America is becoming more hated in more countries than ever before, potentially leaving a legacy of distrust, anger, and even terrorism for decades longer than the current administration will hold power.

    In the words of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation from his post in Greece (he resigned in protest of the current policy of preemption after a 20 year career in the state department), he said:

    "The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security."

    Chilling words indeed.

    If interested, here is his letter in its entirety. I'm suprised it didn't get more play in our media.


    The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation

    to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat

    who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

    Dear Mr. Secretary:

    I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of
    the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S.
    Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The
    baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something
    back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was
    paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out
    diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them
    that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my
    country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic
    arsenal.

    It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I
    would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish
    bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is
    what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human
    nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe
    that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the
    interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

    The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with
    American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of
    war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy
    that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense
    since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest
    and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever
    known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not
    security.

    The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to
    bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a
    uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic
    distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American
    opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us
    stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition
    to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat
    of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build
    on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic
    political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as
    its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion
    in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of
    terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a
    vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to
    weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand
    of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of
    American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia
    of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire
    thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

    We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world
    that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done
    too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S.
    interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our
    aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of
    Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan
    to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we
    indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind
    in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming
    military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of
    post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a
    brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.


    We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our
    friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over
    a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is
    justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into
    complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President
    condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and
    allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior
    officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?

    I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in
    Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and
    closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine.
    Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the
    world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong
    international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When
    our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry.
    And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United
    States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the
    planet?

    Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability.
    You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy
    deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an
    ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the
    President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an
    international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of
    laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our
    foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to
    defend its interests.

    I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my
    conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration.

    I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately
    self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from
    outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and
    prosperity of the American people and the world we share.
     
  14. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #14
    Many South Carolinians, and definitely a majority of citizens of other states flatly do not understand much of anything about South Carolina's legal system (Constitution) and our modern history within the national community.

    First, South Carolina's sovereignty and the relationship between the people and the government are based upon the Constitution of South Carolina. This is a document that makes South Carolina distinct from every other state in the nation. It begins with a preamble know at the Bill of Rights. In fact the very document that establishes our government - and therefore - the fact of South Carolinian sovereignty in the nation - begins with a statement on "rights" for our citizenry that "cannot" every be denied nor infringed upon. These rights are stated first, before the document even begins to delineate the powers of the government.

    With this in mind, South Carolina owes no political, nor legal subservience to any regional authority. I put forth to you now that as a South Carolinian citizen, I will never support the subordination of our Constitution to the United States or any future form of "national government."

    This is not to say that South Carolina will not cooperate with the US and other states when it is in our interest to do so. However, in many times in our modern history, it is "not" in our interest to do so.

    States have no friends: states do have interests in power relationships with other states. There is always competition for power and influence in national events. It is much like gravity in physics: both simply "are" and as such define the limitations of human behavior and activity.

    States do not have friends - they have interests.

    The US was never meant to be a "government" and today it is not a government. It is merely a forum for discussion; exactly like what is occuring in Washington, D.C. today. This forum does not guarantee perfect agreement ever, and indeed more disagreement has occured in this forum over time than agreement.

    From South Carolina's viewpoint (as a sovereign state), New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and many other nations do not have our best interests at heart, nor does South Carolina expect this of them. We expect the kind of behavior that they are engaged in as a fundamental reality of state interests in power contests. So be it: this is the nature of national politics.

    I welcome all statements about my state - positive and critical in nature - however, I kindly ask that persons take the time to read our history and our Constitution in light of how we legally and morally engage the national community. If we perceive our safety as endangered, as other states perceive there safety endagered at times, a sovereign state can and often will operate independent of what other state would like to see. So be it, for this is reality.

    This is ultimately the difference between South Carolina and many northern states. They will accept a certain number of attacks and deaths on their own soil as the price of doing nasty business in nasty places. South Carolina IS NOT New England by design. We rejected their ways and their ideas about life and liberty at the time of our revolution. This is why we will defy them now. Their ways are not our ways, and we have legitimate differences with the New Englanders at this time.

    There will certainly be costs to South Carolina and other states down the road, however, South Carolinian lives, sovereignty, and especially our individual rights are not entrusted to those northern states... and I hope that they will never be so.
     
  15. rebscb macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #15
    This is quite a good discussion now; I appreciate such thoughtful discourse very much.

    I have read Mr. Keisling's letter with great interest and take his logic and analysis as a legitimate position to take in regard to his interpretation of American behavior.

    I challenge him in his decision to place America at the center of this so-called failure of international cooperation.

    Some thoughts... Keisling - as a career diplomat (I have some experience and expertise here) reflects a view of America that may have developed in him as an expatriate over many years. I am not stating that his view is not valid - it is - however it may be quite different from someone who resides primarily in America. Remember, this is exactly the problem that existed with General McArthur in WWII - which led to his inability to work under the explicit decisions of the American President and Congress, which led to Truman's order to relieve him of his command.

    Now, our career diplomats as expatriates (their views) are crucial parts of information that go into the overall decision-making process in Washington. But, his and other diplomats input is merely "part" of the tremendous information that hits the White House every single day.

    His resignation's alleged "importance" is a function of the media. In reality it is just another position that someone high up in the foreign policy community uses to try and sway opinion. Think about how many other American diplomats and officials HAVE NOT resigned and acutally support our policies.

    In regard to assertions that I am a strict Constitutionalist (yes I use a capital "C"), I respond by stating that when it comes to my rights in America in contrast to other governments, I choose to promote such rights as a function of American foreign policy.

    Again, these rights are stated first, before the powers that are stipulated for our government.

    The fact that they were written in the 1700s is amazing as a genius document that BY DESIGN told Europe that we were different and were rejecting their ways and customs.

    All of the international cooperation that Keisling and others have said that we are squandering, was started by America post-WWII. We created the international institutions - with our defeated and defended European and Japanese counterparts. But, they are institutions that are constantly evolving and reflect changes in national interests.

    America - I assert - is not the ultimate culprit in this crisis. France is as much to blame as are we. Yet, I recognize that France does not share American goals or interests at this time. Our relationship with them is evolving and will continue to evolve. Chirac has made a powerful strategic move that has nothing to do with what is right. It has everything to do with the distribution of power in a post-cold war world.

    France has made the play (and undercutting Secretary Powell in the process) and America is not responsible for their strategic decision to challenge us. But, we will take them head on and this relationship is now fundamentally altered into the forseeable future.

    The world is evolving, and our interests are not the same as the Europeans at this time. So be it....
     
  16. rebscb macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #16
    I also must reply to alex-ant. Your parody is interesting and somewhat of an accurate description of America - about 142 years ago. As a southernor, I am quite familiar with the "War of Northern Aggression" and other BS state's rights positions. However, the fact that Lincoln won established the fact of federalism in the United States in which the federal government does have authority over each and all of the states in many matters. This has been upheld in numerous Supreme Court matters in the last 142 years.

    That being said, the contest for power between the individual states and the federal government is a healthy aspect of our Constitution-based society.

    Unfortunately, your parody does not hold up as a truly analogous description of the relationship between American and the UN.

    Lastly, I must contest your exact use of my wording and logic. Plagiarism is a serious crime.
    I assume that you are capable of writing your thoughts on paper (or electronically) in such a way so as not to plainly copy another's ideas. In the future, please cite me according to the rules in the AP style manual. Thanks.
     
  17. zarathustra macrumors 6502a

    zarathustra

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #17
    Alex_Ant, that's very cute. Flawed, but very cute nonetheless.

    The UN might be SIMILAR to the federal/state make-up of the USA (which further proves that the American model of democracy is copied and/or implemented all over the world), it is only a forum.

    Bills are signed into law in Washington, but the UN can only pass resolutions - something that gets ignored very easily. Well, for example, Iraq seems to be doing just that. Etc.
     
  18. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #18
    I love how I have said for a long time that the UN charter violates the contitution. Now Annan says that if we go in without a resolution that we are violating the UN charter. Wow, that is deep. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and NO LAW can be passed which superceeds the Constitution. Nor can any treaty or agreement be signed that does so either. We are a soveriegn nation, and we will protect the US and its interests. Sorry if people cannot understand that one.


    Great posts rebscb, nice to have you around.
     
  19. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #19
    Using strict constructionism to argue for ignoring the UN definitely makes the Constitution in application the issue.

    He did make very good points. Just not points I agree with.
     
  20. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #20
    Should we then start to require stringent checking for accuracy and spelling/grammatical errors before posting as well?

    I can point to a few choice examples of these "rules" being violated...;)
     
  21. rebscb macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #21
    Rower - CPU

    I am always for better English and better communication. Perhaps your idea is a good one. Grammatical and spelling mistakes will always be made - especially in forums like this one, however, we should take more time and strive to do better.

    My point was of a different nature. Since alex-ant used my thoughts and wording almost word for word, it significantly altered my ideas and message. It - in effect - put my message in danger of misinterpretation by other readers who will not take the time to read the entire thread. His parody puts my ideas at risk in this forum, and as such, is unacceptable in terms of my right to promote my own ideas without another using my own language to alter my intent.
     
  22. conceptdev macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    #22
    It would be sheer lunacy to suggest that AP style guides what kind of suggestion, where is the footnotey goodness of Chicago or the manic and ever changing MLA.

    Every message is in danger of misinterpretation - that is risk of communication.

    Legally alex is within his/her rights in the US, satire is a protected form of speech - it is embedded in the constitution. If you want a recent ruling to go by it was the Muppets VS Spam case - can't bother to look up the details.

    And finally as to the radical break from European thought may I suggest that you study the epistemology of early American thought and its relation to The Enlightenment - you never know it might be enlightening.
     
  23. chrisfx811 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    louisville
    #23
    plagiarise, schmlagiarise! (that's right i just made that one up)
    rebscb: as someone who could probably not articulate my thoughts that well, your views on the situation are dead on, imho.
    why do so many people want to point the finger at the bush administration, pre-emptively i might add, for the potential consequences that may happen after an invasion of iraq?
    will, we be to blame if n. korea launches an attack on s. korea because the bush administration refuses unilateral talks? what kind of backwards logic is this?
     
  24. rebscb macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #24
    I detect a rather sarcastic tone in your post - not necessary... we can have a calm and respectful conversation here, no?

    Please tell me about the epistemology of early American thought in relation to the Enlightenment. I would find it to be enlightening - indeed I have found it to be rather informative in my career.

    However, I do believe that your use of the term epistemology is rather "unusual." You must be referring then to the "theory of knowledge" (epistemology) of American thought? I'm not sure that I see what it is that you are suggesting that I read.

    Epistemology is a direct statement about "scientific" methodology as it is applied to discern "truth" about the physical universe. It is difficult to see how one might apply this to a "normative" set of readings that you refer to; American thought. (the distinction between scientific and normative is the crucial point).

    As for your statement about American thought and its relation to the Enlightenment - I assume that you are referring to American normative philosophy developing from Continental philosophers such as Rousseau and Hobbes?

    In Hobbes "Leviathan," he describes the historical State as a monster that devours its subjects (people) in the form of using them as tools for wars, expansion of real estate and sources of revenue. This is exactly what Europe moved toward, but was never fully realized until the creation of American Constitution via our Revolution. Yes, I find this quite enlightening.
     
  25. rebscb macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #25
    conceptdev,

    Satire is an accepted practice, but not in the form of using - word for word - someone's ideas that have clear intent; so as to alter said intent.

    From a university syllabus:

    Plagiarism: Students should know that plagiarism is the unacknowledged use of someone else's ideas or writing.

    He can satirize my thoughts - using my ideas word for word - as long as he puts them in quotes and cites me as the author.
     

Share This Page