PDA

View Full Version : Where Is The Respect?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Incoming663
01-09-2007, 12:52 AM
I'm "old school" and recently became active again in the late David German's US TAI system under O'sensei Andy Watford, Master German's heir apparent.
I have taken from the late Grandmasters Ed Parker and Master Virgil Kimmey. I have studied many systems and have blackbelts in two.
Okay guys. Please allow me to get a little informal in this post.
I have read, with interest, this great web site - especially the forums page. I was a bit surprised to read some of the angry and disrespectful comments from a few of the martial artists in an interchange regarding differing points of view.
Hey guys and ladies. I'm new here. And I don't wish to offend anyone. But some of the rather aggresive postings would be much more effective if one could make their point(s) without offensive syntax.
Anyhow, most of you guys are great and this is a wonderful martial arts web site. Peace out.~The REAL BigDawg~
www.therealbigdawg.com

Guilty Spark
01-09-2007, 01:43 AM
Favorite Sites
* Ann Coulter
* Bill O'Reilly

Yikes!

I think you're right, some messages are over the top and some (many) points could be easier made without the agressive comments. Nature of the beast though, especially with politics and religion.

Whats even worse in my opinion is people making aggressive comments and persnal attacks and hiding them with polite words and psudo civilty. Like if they say it in a nice way it's okay. Reminds me of someone speaking to you out of the side of their mouth smiling.

SeiserL
01-09-2007, 08:35 AM
But some of the rather aggresive postings would be much more effective if one could make their point(s) without offensive syntax.
Yes, many of us from the old school are still practicing on this thing called relax, enter, and blend without offering or reacting to aggressive resistance.

Kevin Wilbanks
01-09-2007, 12:08 PM
Grant is right. Your favorite websites list reads like a who's who of some of the most prominent perpetrators of incivility and vitriol in public political debate today. I don't see how you could be genuine about the sentiment you just posted here and be a fan of such demagogues.

As for your criticism of this forum, in my long experience of such internet boards, it usually seems above average in terms of civility. The only place I've seen significantly more polite exchanges is on boards where all posts are pre-screened by a moderator. In my experience, just as many people get upset by agressive, legitimate debating that sticks to the topic as they do by personal insults, and the inability to distinguish is often what leads to insults. I am quite disciplined about confining my criticisms to a person's ideas and behavior in the debate, yet I am insulted all the time, and often characterized as a "bad guy" by folks who can't tell the difference when the dust has settled.

Guilty Spark
01-09-2007, 02:04 PM
Your favorite websites list reads like a who's who of some of the most prominent perpetrators of incivility and vitriol in public political debate today.

Exactly.

Neil Mick
01-09-2007, 05:47 PM
Yes, I agree. It is unfortunate when people resort to disrespect, to make their point. It also tends to bias the discussion away from debate, and more toward an atmosphere of "one-upmanship," which is unfortunate.

But, I agree with Kevin, that the post'ers on this site tend more toward civility. Surprising, considering Jun's open-handed style of moderation (which I approve, BTW. I once wrote on a site moderated by a several ppl each, on a different forum-theme. The over-moderation left a bad taste in my mouth).

Another example is AJ, in which political discussion has been largely banned. From what I see, it does not do the site much good, IMO.

Guilty Spark
01-10-2007, 02:01 AM
I don't blame people for not wanting politics in discussion forms.
It's all well and good to keep politics to a generalized location, which members can happily choose to ignore, but some posters ruin it by finding ways to drag politics, political agendas and firing off political one liners into unrelated debates.

James Davis
01-10-2007, 12:57 PM
I don't blame people for not wanting politics in discussion forms.
It's all well and good to keep politics to a generalized location, which members can happily choose to ignore, but some posters ruin it by finding ways to drag politics, political agendas and firing off political one liners into unrelated debates.
Is my sig a problem? :sorry:

Ron Tisdale
01-10-2007, 01:00 PM
James, I LIKE your sig. ;) Please don't change it...

Best,
Ron

Neil Mick
01-10-2007, 01:10 PM
James, I LIKE your sig. ;) Please don't change it...

Best,
Ron

+1 ;)

Neil Mick
01-10-2007, 02:27 PM
I don't blame people for not wanting politics in discussion forms.

Me neither. But, I think that political discussion is important, esp within the context of a martial art promoting harmony.

How do you preserve harmony withn the framework of a dis-harmonious topic?

It's all well and good to keep politics to a generalized location, which members can happily choose to ignore, but some posters ruin it by finding ways to drag politics, political agendas and firing off political one liners into unrelated debates.

Hmm...not sure what you mean. The few times I (or others) fired off a political one-liner in a non-political topic never seemed to drag the conversation down, IMO. Ppl just seemed to shrug or laugh it off (which is usually the intention), and move on.

Kevin Leavitt
01-10-2007, 02:31 PM
Neil, How do you believe you can acheive a better understanding of harmony, or promote it through the discussion of politics?

Incoming663
01-10-2007, 02:48 PM
Re: Where Is The Respect?
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=164246#post164246
Posted by: Kevin Wilbanks
On: Yesterday 12:08 PM

Grant is right. Your favorite websites list reads like a who's who of some of the most prominent perpetrators of incivility and vitriol in public political debate today. I don't see how you could be genuine about the sentiment you just posted here and be a fan of such demagogues.

As for your criticism of this forum, in my long experience of such internet boards, it usually seems above average in terms of civility. The only place I've seen significantly more polite exchanges is on boards where all posts are pre-screened by a moderator. In my experience, just as many people get upset by agressive, legitimate debating that sticks to the topic as they do by personal insults, and the inability to distinguish is often what leads to insults. I am quite disciplined about confining my criticisms to a person's ideas and behavior in the debate, yet I am insulted all the time, and often characterized as a "bad guy" by folks who can't tell the difference when the dust has settled.
************
Greetings Mr. Wilbanks. I had just written a reply to your reply and before I could finish, it disappeared. Gremlins I suppose - lol.
Anyhow, I found your feedback interesting and I thank you for taking the time to respond to it. Not only that, apparently before you made your reply, sir, you did a cursory check of my blog. Same thing I would have done. However, I am sorry that you "profiled" me based on my "Favorite Web Sites" and as I inferred from your feedback, you found my posting disingenuous because of that. It wasn't. But I suppose that it could have come across as being self-righteous and sanctimonious on my part.
Sir, I am not a "fan" of anybody. I have been in radio all my adult life crankin' out rock & roll. I have a very thick skin - you have to be thick skinned to be in tha biz. I've had death threats, bomb threats, a drive-by shooting when I was on the air, and of course, the "groupie" thing. "Fans" is something that I could never quite figure out. But I digress. As for my blog, yes I do have quite a few loopy web sites under my "Favorite Web Sites." And no ... I am not a fan of some of the web sites that you found offensive. There is, however a method to that madness and it is this: "Never Be Boring." A cardinal rule in broadcasting - and bloging. So, I do stretch the limits of sanity and good taste to engender feedback such as yours. And no, Mr. Wilbanks, I was not offended in the least by your reply to my reply. I found what you wrote perceptive and interesting. I also don't think that you are a "bad guy" at all. I appreciate it when someone just comes out and just tells it like it is without "cotton-mouthing" with pseudo political correctness.
Mr. Wilbanks, when I put on my gi and step onto the floor, I leave all the undesirable elements in this world behind me. The dojo and our members are my family. I have found peace and respect for and from others all my life in the dojo. So I do stand by my posting, "Where's The Respect?" I meant every word of it. If I didn't, I would not be defending it. I hope that you and I can stay in touch from time to time. Cheers.~Dawg~

www.therealbigdawg.com
http://journals.aol.com/incoming663/DawgBytesfromTheRealBigDawg/
http://dawgbytesfromtherealbigdawg.blogspot.com/
Email:Incoming663@aol.com[/email]

Incoming663
01-10-2007, 03:00 PM
Greetings Mr. Wilbanks. I had just written a reply to your reply and before I could finish it disappeared. Gremlins I suppose - lol.
Anyhow, I found you feedback interesting and I thank you for taking the time to respond to it. Not only that, apparently before you made your reply, sir, you did a cursory check of my blog. Same thing I would have done. However, I am sorry that you "profiled" me based on my "Favorite Web sites" and as I inferred from your feedback, you found my posting disingenuous. It wasn't. But I suppose that it could have come across as being self-righteous and sanctimonious on my part.
Sir, I am not a "fan" of anybody. I have been in radio all my adult life crankin' out rock & roll. I have a very thick skin - you have to thick skinned to be in tha biz. I've had death threats, bomb threats, a drive-by shooting when I was on the air, and the "groupie" thing. "Fans" is something that I could never quite figure out. But I digress. As for my blog, yes I do have quite a few loopy web sites under my "Favorite Web Sites." And no ... I am not a fan of some of the web sites that you found offensive. There is, however a method to that madness and it is this: "Never Be Boring." A cardinal rule in broadcasting - and bloging. So, I do stretch the limits of sanity and good taste to engender feedback such as yours. And no, Mr. Wilbanks, I was not offended in the least by your reply to my reply. I found what you wrote perceptive and interesting. I also don't think that you are a "bad guy" at all. I appreciate it when someone just comes out and just tells it like it is without "cotton-mouthing" with pseudo political correctness.
Mr. Wilbanks, when I put on my gi and step onto the floor, I leave all the undesirable elements in this world behind me. The dojo and our members are my family. I have found peace and respect for and from others all my life in the dojo. So I do stand by my posting, "Where's The Respect?" I meant every word of it. If I didn't, I would not be defending it. I hope that you and I can stay in touch from time to time. Cheers.~Dawg~

www.therealbigdawg.com
http://journals.aol.com/incoming663/DawgBytesfromTheRealBigDawg/
http://dawgbytesfromtherealbigdawg.blogspot.com/
Email: Incoming663@aol.com

Kevin Leavitt
01-10-2007, 03:24 PM
Frank Murphy wrote:

I am not a fan of some of the web sites that you found offensive. There is, however a method to that madness and it is this: "Never Be Boring." A cardinal rule in broadcasting - and bloging. So, I do stretch the limits of sanity and good taste to engender feedback such as yours.

So at what point do you make an ethical decision to promote/sponsor certain things or to not?

I am not being judgemental, just asking where you stand on this.

Is it all about making money, or getting good ratings or at some point do you say, "this is the line I won't cross, because it is against my personal values/ethics"'?

Incoming663
01-10-2007, 03:25 PM
A 1,000 pardons for the double posting. My bad.~Dawg

Incoming663
01-10-2007, 03:53 PM
Frank Murphy wrote:



So at what point do you make an ethical decision to promote/sponsor certain things or to not?

I am not being judgemental, just asking where you stand on this.

Is it all about making money, or getting good ratings or at some point do you say, "this is the line I won't cross, because it is against my personal values/ethics"'?
An interesting question. Perhaps if you could check out my AOL blog site and give me some specificity, it might help me to give you an intelligent answer. I am the antithisis of a Howard Stern - I hope - and do not go beyond community standards on the web site. But, a friend of mine has advised me that I do cross the line from time to time. And honestly, yes ... numbers (ratings) are unfortunately a motivating force. I have always gone by the code that there are some things real men do and some things real men don't do. I do have a tendency to put both size 13's in my mouth at times. Maggie, my wife of 30 years does have to reel me in at times.
I did serve my country in the USAF during the 'Nam. I am a practicing Lutheran. I am a political independent. I listen to all sides. And, I must say that this is the first time that I have been doing the blog that I have ever been really challenged and forced to think about how I make MY points, sir.
You give me pause. The site is this: Http://journals.aol.com/incoming663/DawgBytesfromTheRealBigdawg/
I hope to hear back from you,sir. All my best.=Frank

Neil Mick
01-10-2007, 03:57 PM
Neil, How do you believe you can acheive a better understanding of harmony, or promote it through the discussion of politics?

A good question. I believe that I have already achieved this goal, in small ways. But, harmony is not a constant-state. People in harmony today could become bitter enemies tomorrow, through the misuse of a single word. I've seen it happen.

But, to answer your question: harmony is achieved by blending. You listen to the other's argument and try to understand why s/he feels this way; not to be confused with "trying to guess WHO the person is," but WHY they feel this way.

It is also a good idea, as Luc Sarafim recently posted, to begin with the basic statement that everyone has a point of view, and a good reason for their political beliefs. In a sense, everyone is right.

Ron Tisdale
01-10-2007, 03:58 PM
I've had it happen to me. Trying to learn...trying to be better...

Frank, I commend the way you handle yourself here, in any case. Welcome.

Best,
Ron

Incoming663
01-10-2007, 04:05 PM
Oh man, Ron ... I have my feet to the fire sir. Thanks so much for the moral support. Most web sites are extremely trashy and my filters are to the max, but some still get throught. Thanks again, Ron. Maggie just got home so I'll get her down-to-earth critique of all this. She ismy barometer.=Frank

Kevin Leavitt
01-10-2007, 04:10 PM
Frank Murphy wrote:

I have always gone by the code that there are some things real men do and some things real men don't do.

can you give some examples?

Kevin Leavitt
01-10-2007, 04:14 PM
I see Neil, it is like a verbal randori for you. Make some sense. I was looking at it slightly different I guess. Glad I asked first.

I am reading a couple of books right now. one by Krishnamurti.

Here is a quote to that I was pondering.

“All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man.” J. Krishnamurti

Neil Mick
01-10-2007, 04:20 PM
I see Neil, it is like a verbal randori for you.

Yes, exactly.

I am reading a couple of books right now. one by Krishnamurti.

Here is a quote to that I was pondering.

"All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man."

Hmm, an interesting thought. So, would you suggest, then: that the way out of our polarized climate in the US would be to eschew political conversation, and stay away from any belief which might pull you to one side of a poitical/ideological debate, or another?

Isn't that what the bulk of the US population already does? :straightf

Kevin Leavitt
01-10-2007, 04:36 PM
I am talking in ideals of course, and not reality (although it would be nice and something to have as a goal).

I suppose that the bottomline is that in any thing we do we should seek to be geniune and truthful, and take action based on this. That is, we'd do what was right for people, not necesssarily for what was good for a particular group of people, or an particular agenda.

I admit, that this is very difficult to do.

To answer your question directly. I think that at some point that one side might be right, genuine, and truthful on a particular issue, therefore, you would make a choice to take action that aligns with that side.

So, you would again upset the balance and be accused of being polictical (polarized). it would simply go back and forth under the duality of it and you would have agendas, mistrust, and politics.

To truly accomplish this, you need to have everyone involved with seeking to solve the problem from a point of truth.

Okay...so here is the problem. Because we have so many perspectives, motivational factors, ideologies, and beliefs...then everyone thinks they are right and truthful!

If we had everyone aligned under the same ideology etc...well then you have things like cults, dictators...etc.

Seems you cannot win!

All we can do I think is worry about ourselves, keep this in mind..that is...that we are influenced by ideology. My mindful decisions, and thnk hard about how the choice we make impact the world.

If enough people did this, then things would gradually move in the right direction.

What choice do we have?

Hence, why I never get into those political discussions with you Neil! I read them from time to time...but I don't get the same practice in randori that you do from them. Just a different perspective.

Good conversation Neil.

Thanks.

Hogan
01-10-2007, 04:47 PM
...But, to answer your question: harmony is achieved by blending. You listen to the other's argument and try to understand why s/he feels this way; not to be confused with "trying to guess WHO the person is," but WHY they feel this way. ..


How does this view harmonize with you putting people on ignore when you disagree with them?

Neil Mick
01-10-2007, 05:23 PM
I am talking in ideals of course, and not reality (although it would be nice and something to have as a goal).

I suppose that the bottomline is that in any thing we do we should seek to be geniune and truthful, and take action based on this. That is, we'd do what was right for people, not necesssarily for what was good for a particular group of people, or an particular agenda.

I admit, that this is very difficult to do.

Yes. And then there's the issue of who/what decides what is "right," for people. Different people have different perspectives, on what is right/wrong.

To answer your question directly. I think that at some point that one side might be right, genuine, and truthful on a particular issue, therefore, you would make a choice to take action that aligns with that side.

So, you would again upset the balance and be accused of being polictical (polarized). it would simply go back and forth under the duality of it and you would have agendas, mistrust, and politics.

To truly accomplish this, you need to have everyone involved with seeking to solve the problem from a point of truth.

Yes, and therein lies the rub. So much misinformation is out there, even from our leaders. How do we achieve harmony, when the "other side" is so misinformed?

Okay...so here is the problem. Because we have so many perspectives, motivational factors, ideologies, and beliefs...then everyone thinks they are right and truthful!

Exactly.

If we had everyone aligned under the same ideology etc...well then you have things like cults, dictators...etc.

Seems you cannot win!

All we can do I think is worry about ourselves, keep this in mind..that is...that we are influenced by ideology. My mindful decisions, and thnk hard about how the choice we make impact the world.

Agreed.

If enough people did this, then things would gradually move in the right direction.

What choice do we have?

Hence, why I never get into those political discussions with you Neil! I read them from time to time...but I don't get the same practice in randori that you do from them. Just a different perspective.

No problem! Some ppl like talking politics and get a lot out of it: and some don't. I accept that. One man's food, another man's poison, and all that.

Good conversation Neil.

Thanks.

Same to ya.

How does this view harmonize with you putting people on ignore when you disagree with them?


Good, John, I'm glad you posted, here. I can assume that you'll be respectful in a forum entitled "Respect," and so I can remove the ignore (for now).

The simple answer to your question is, I don't put ppl on ignore when they disagree with me. I put them on ignore when their posts become personally insulting. In fact, I welcome dissenting views in a political discussion, so long as it is a discussion free from personal attacks.

For the rest, I use the ignore button.

mriehle
01-10-2007, 06:18 PM
Is my sig a problem? :sorry:

Well, I think it's kind of hard on the drunken sailors...

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Kevin Wilbanks
01-11-2007, 05:14 AM
Frank Murphy wrote:



So at what point do you make an ethical decision to promote/sponsor certain things or to not?

I am not being judgemental, just asking where you stand on this.

Is it all about making money, or getting good ratings or at some point do you say, "this is the line I won't cross, because it is against my personal values/ethics"'?


I think what Mr. Leavitt is driving at here is that there is really no way for you to promote and link the websites of these people without taking some responsibility for what they say. Your reply seemed almost completely irrelevant.

I can understand that, in terms of entertainment "form" the people you have linked are "not boring", but in terms of content, they are raving demagogues, promoting hatred, intolerance, and everything but "respect" and rational debate. Just some examples that come to mind... O'Reilly has said that people in San Fransico deserve to be attacked by terrorists. Coulter has repeatedly referred to middle-easterners as "ragheads", called Americans whom she considers too liberal "terrorists" and often makes statements like "Liberals hate God and hate America". Hannity's show is often composed almost entirely of people screaming at each other simultaneously, with almost no possibility of the viewer even understanding what is being said.

Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It would take pages to dissect all the ways in which these people are making a career out of dragging public debate down to the most vicious sub-mental level possible. If you claim to value respectful dialogue and take umbrage at the kind of mild strife that takes place on Aikiweb, there is no way you can link and promote these people's sites without being a hypocrite. Trying to separate the form of what these people do 'as entertainment' from the content of what they say and the function that they serve in mainstream politics isn't going to fool anyone who is honest and has basic thinking skills.

Guilty Spark
01-11-2007, 08:09 AM
Hey Neil,

Me neither. But, I think that political discussion is important, esp within the context of a martial art promoting harmony.

How do you preserve harmony within the framework of a dis-harmonious topic?

Political arguing has it's place. If there is a political forum on a message board then that's fine, and even if it's in a general forum, in moderation it's fine.
Most of the posts I've read from you seem centered on politics. We all love Aikido here- I really wonder sometimes how healthy it is to mix aikido and politics.

I do see the point how harmony should be implemented in something like politics but, and take this at face value my friend, you don't really strike me as trying to harmonize with anything when it comes to politics. (Not saying your alone in that either)
From you're posts I don't see you trying to take someone Else's point of view into the mix all too often. Truthfully it seems more like you feel you are right and that's the end of it. Not often a lot of room for Harmony, blending of points of view and such.
I understand how such arguments stands as a form of verbal randori but again I don't see it as blending so much as 'I'm right and i dint understand why everyone else doesn't see things the way I do.'
That's just my opinion of course, I'm a crude amateur when it comes to political and even on line debating and I may be alone in my assessment but that's how you come across to me, take that for what it's worth.
With regards to the odd political comment thrown in here and there, I think for the most part they've been harmless but reading them I've always felt like the poster was (often) trying to spark up a political debate. Maybe I'm just not reading the humor correctly, in which case my bad.
In the end you did contribute to the forum (something I haven't done yet) so if politics is how you approach Aikido who am I or anyone else for that matter to say anything.

Frank, I completely agree with the comment that someone is at least somewhat responsible for the content of the links and such that they post or link to their messages and profiles.
MANY of the links on your bigdawg web page favorite list are the farthest thing from heavens of respectful discussion. I'd say he opposite. People such as Ann coulter made a name for themselves by being aggressive rude and making noise.
It makes your initial comments on respect and aggressive posting less effective.

Neil Mick
01-11-2007, 10:54 AM
Most of the posts I've read from you seem centered on politics. We all love Aikido here- I really wonder sometimes how healthy it is to mix aikido and politics.

"Healthy?" Sometimes I wonder how healthy it is, to avoid mixing Aikido and politics. Americans, esp, have a hard time talking about politics. And yet, what's going on in this country (and the world) really do need to be discussed.

Look, there is a time and a place, for everything. Personally, I cringe when someone makes a political statement in the circle, after practice. It does not seem the appropriate moment, then. Fora, OTOH, seem a natural outlet for discussion, ergo, politics is a natural topic.

I do see the point how harmony should be implemented in something like politics but, and take this at face value my friend, you don't really strike me as trying to harmonize with anything when it comes to politics. (Not saying your alone in that either)
From you're posts I don't see you trying to take someone Else's point of view into the mix all too often. Truthfully it seems more like you feel you are right and that's the end of it.

:D "If I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!" "No it isn't! An argument is an intellectual process!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc) :D (sorry, couldn't help myself)

There are different ways to "harmonize." Fo instance, from my very first post on the 50+ page thread on Iraq in 2002 until well into 2004, I contended that there were no wmd's in Iraq.

Now, do you think that "harmonizing" means that I should capitulate to the other's view, and say, OK, you may have a point, there could be wmd's in Iraq, somewhere?

No, of course not. Capitulation would be equivalent to handing a mugger your wallet and valuables as a first option (sometimes, this IS the best course of action...but not the only one). "Harmony" in political discussion, translates to a "meeting of minds." In a meeting of minds, I don't have to capitulate to the other's perspective...we can each have disagreements and still carry on a discussion with integrity.

Not often a lot of room for Harmony, blending of points of view and such.

I do not agree. I think you're focusing overmuch on the dissention.

I understand how such arguments stands as a form of verbal randori but again I don't see it as blending so much as 'I'm right and i dint understand why everyone else doesn't see things the way I do.'

Frankly, I don't remember ever saying anything like that.

That's just my opinion of course, I'm a crude amateur when it comes to political and even on line debating and I may be alone in my assessment but that's how you come across to me, take that for what it's worth.
With regards to the odd political comment thrown in here and there, I think for the most part they've been harmless but reading them I've always felt like the poster was (often) trying to spark up a political debate. Maybe I'm just not reading the humor correctly, in which case my bad.
In the end you did contribute to the forum (something I haven't done yet) so if politics is how you approach Aikido who am I or anyone else for that matter to say anything.

Not sure what you mean...of course you contribute to political fora. I actually look forward to your perspectives.

Frank, I completely agree with the comment that someone is at least somewhat responsible for the content of the links and such that they post or link to their messages and profiles.
MANY of the links on your bigdawg web page favorite list are the farthest thing from heavens of respectful discussion. I'd say he opposite. People such as Ann coulter made a name for themselves by being aggressive rude and making noise.
It makes your initial comments on respect and aggressive posting less effective.

Well, yeah, but his OP provides a conversational opening; and with the proper etiquette...I, for one, would welcome someone with such an attitude, into a political discussion (so long as Frank does not get upset when ppl say "that's the craziest idea I've ever heard!" :) ).

Mark Freeman
01-11-2007, 11:11 AM
:D "If I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!" "No it isn't! An argument is an intellectual process!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc) :D (sorry, couldn't help myself)

There are different ways to "harmonize." Fo instance, from my very first post on the 50+ page thread on Iraq in 2002 until well into 2004, I contended that there were no wmd's in Iraq.

Thanks for that link Neil, I haven't seen that in a while "classic"! :D

BTW is there anyone out there that still contends that there were wmd's in Iraq? :crazy:

Political debate has to be healthy, the fact that we do and can, must be cherished and respected. What is the alternative, hitting each other with sticks?

regards,

Mark

mriehle
01-11-2007, 12:48 PM
Thanks for that link Neil, I haven't seen that in a while "classic"! :D

Dagnabit! My browser won't do YouTube! Yet...

BTW is there anyone out there that still contends that there were wmd's in Iraq? :crazy:

Sadly, yes. Some of them are my neigbors.

Political debate has to be healthy, the fact that we do and can, must be cherished and respected.

Absolutely. The key there is "debate" as opposed to "fight".

What is the alternative, hitting each other with sticks?

What, you don't do that in your school?

Mark Freeman
01-11-2007, 01:14 PM
Dagnabit! My browser won't do YouTube! Yet...

Get an upgrade Michael, you are missing out on sooo much :D

cheers

Mark

mriehle
01-11-2007, 01:28 PM
Get an upgrade Michael, you are missing out on sooo much :D

cheers

Mark

As it happens, I'm working on just that right now. Okay, it's part of a larger effort (building a workstation), but...

Actually I have no less than four computers I work with. It just happens the one I'm working on right at the moment has the broken browser.

Mark Gibbons
01-11-2007, 02:09 PM
....
Absolutely. The key there is "debate" as opposed to "fight".
...



I wonder about the term "debate". Debates normally have more formal rules than discussions and winners and losers. This forum doesn't have the formal rules that are intended to keep "debates" civil. I think having discussions without needing to win might be a less confrontational and more respectful communications style.

Mark

mriehle
01-11-2007, 02:15 PM
Yes, Mark, I think you may be correct.

Mike Sigman
01-11-2007, 02:42 PM
BTW is there anyone out there that still contends that there were wmd's in Iraq? :crazy: As far as I know, no report has said definitively that there never were any WMD's in Iraq. The official reports were that they did not find any, after limited searching. If you think about it, no one with more than a double-digit IQ would be willing to say definitively that there were none in Iraq, since all the world's leading intelligence agencies said there were, all the records of WMD were destroyed by the Iraqis (this continued *after* the US has occupied Iraq, BTW), and various Iraqis have said that there were some. Not to mention a defector from Russian intelligence has said that the last-minute Russian teams in Iraq were to help them dispose of the WMD's. In other words, it's still a *debatable* topic and if WMD's did exist (and were moved to Syria, etc.), what would be the long-term consequences on any politician etc., who declared definitively that there were no such weapons. His/her career would be cut short if they ever came to light. Notice, for instance, that Hillary Clinton, among a number of others, is very careful in what she says about WMD's.

Now... back to your question, which was, "is there anyone out there that still contends that there were wmd's in Iraq?". Are you saying definitively that there were NO WMD's in Iraq and that the issue is settled? ;) Or are we just going on a "feeling" that there must have been none, period? Perhaps you're willing to stipulate that nothing definitive has been proven one way or the other?

Regards,

Mike

Mike Sigman
01-11-2007, 02:44 PM
I wonder about the term "debate". Debates normally have more formal rules than discussions and winners and losers. This forum doesn't have the formal rules that are intended to keep "debates" civil. I think having discussions without needing to win might be a less confrontational and more respectful communications style. "A bunch of martial artists get together and a fight breaks out. Quelle surprise". -Chas Clements

Mark Gibbons
01-11-2007, 03:03 PM
"A bunch of martial artists get together and a fight breaks out. Quelle surprise". -Chas Clements


It would be in my experience. Most folks I've played with are very polite. We even have discussions without too much arm twisting. There's always some background level of sankyo among the married and dating however.


Mark

Ron Tisdale
01-11-2007, 03:09 PM
If you think about it, no one with more than a double-digit IQ would be willing to say definitively that there were none in Iraq, since all the world's leading intelligence agencies said there were...

Well, I don't particularly have a dog in this, uh, fight...uh, discussion, but...weren't these major intelligence agencies also claiming that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa? If they were so wrong about that...not saying there weren't WMDs, but I'd sure like a better source than the same spuds who came up with that idea...

Best,
Ron

I always liked that quote from Chas...how's he doing these days anyway???

Mark Freeman
01-11-2007, 06:46 PM
As far as I know, no report has said definitively that there never were any WMD's in Iraq. The official reports were that they did not find any, after limited searching. If you think about it, no one with more than a double-digit IQ would be willing to say definitively that there were none in Iraq, since all the world's leading intelligence agencies said there were, all the records of WMD were destroyed by the Iraqis (this continued *after* the US has occupied Iraq, BTW), and various Iraqis have said that there were some. Not to mention a defector from Russian intelligence has said that the last-minute Russian teams in Iraq were to help them dispose of the WMD's. In other words, it's still a *debatable* topic and if WMD's did exist (and were moved to Syria, etc.), what would be the long-term consequences on any politician etc., who declared definitively that there were no such weapons. His/her career would be cut short if they ever came to light. Notice, for instance, that Hillary Clinton, among a number of others, is very careful in what she says about WMD's.

Now... back to your question, which was, "is there anyone out there that still contends that there were wmd's in Iraq?". Are you saying definitively that there were NO WMD's in Iraq and that the issue is settled? ;) Or are we just going on a "feeling" that there must have been none, period? Perhaps you're willing to stipulate that nothing definitive has been proven one way or the other?

Regards,

Mike

I'm not sure that this debate has much to do with the thread topic, however, I doubt if there will ever be a definitive report stating that there were no wmd's, too much egg on too many faces ;) I would have thought that with the US military spy satelites that can read a cars number plate from space, that they might have spotted a convoy of escaping weapons on their way to Syria or anywhere else?
Until someone comes up with some proof that there were wmd's there. I'll stick with thinking that they weren't, and that the 'intelligence' was suspect. There have been enough Brit intel personnel who have broken ranks and said as much.
Coalition forces have been there for nearly 4 years now, you'd think that they might have turned up something by now wouldn't you?

But then, what would I know?:rolleyes:

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
01-11-2007, 07:08 PM
I'm not sure that this debate has much to do with the thread topic, however, I doubt if there will ever be a definitive report stating that there were no wmd's, too much egg on too many faces ;) I would have thought that with the US military spy satelites that can read a cars number plate from space, that they might have spotted a convoy of escaping weapons on their way to Syria or anywhere else? I only mentioned it because of your trivializing the idea that someone would seriously think there may have been WMD's in Iraq. One of the assistant Department of the Army guys said it outright when he retired, talking about satellite photos exactly as you mentioned. Then there's these:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007645.php]
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21489.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=convoy+%2B+wmd%27s+%2B+syria
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581

The interesting part is how this information is either not reported or relegated to the back page with little coverage by the liberal press... leaving the impression among people like you, that the WMD question is over and Blair and Bush were evil. Actually, the liberal media is the evil one, as far as I can tell. They propagandize... and it appears that it works, eh? ;)
Until someone comes up with some proof that there were wmd's there. I'll stick with thinking that they weren't, and that the 'intelligence' was suspect. There have been enough Brit intel personnel who have broken ranks and said as much.
Coalition forces have been there for nearly 4 years now, you'd think that they might have turned up something by now wouldn't you? How do they "turn up" something that's in Syria? Essentially, as I see it, there are 3 choices: believe that there were WMD's, believe that there weren't WMD's, or believe that the topic is unsettled. I go with the last choice. I don't trivialize people for believing what they want on the subject, Mark.

Besides, the part that has always intrigued me is that for there to have been no WMD's means that someone as nasty as Saddam willingly and surreptitiously destroyed all of the very weapons that kept him on a power binge. Frankly, I find it difficult to buy into that absurd idea, yet that has to be the cornerstone reasoning if you believe there were absolutely no WMD's.

FWIW

Mike

Mike Sigman
01-11-2007, 07:12 PM
:yuck: particularly have a dog in this, uh, fight...uh, discussion, but...weren't these major intelligence agencies also claiming that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa? If they were so wrong about that...not saying there weren't WMDs, but I'd sure like a better source than the same spuds who came up with that idea...
Er, Ron.... Joe Wilson lied. In order to avoid being tagged with perjury, he told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he "misspoke" in the famous NYTimes article. Saddam did try to buy uranium, it turns out... although the media definitely didn't play that story up. I always liked that quote from Chas...how's he doing these days anyway???Well... I think he's scraping by, Ron.

Best.

Mike

Neil Mick
01-11-2007, 08:15 PM
weren't these major intelligence agencies also claiming that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa?

Correct, Ron. And, of course, there were a slew of rightwing bloggers and blatherers who attempted (and failed) to debunk Wilson's story by throwing up falsehoods and doubletalk. You can see some of the falsehoods themselves debunked, here, (http://mediamatters.org/items/200510260002) and here. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200508010003)

But even if you pooh-pooh the link: then how come a two-year investigation by U.S. attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald into the matter revealed nothing? Last I checked, lying before a Senate Committee is grounds for perjury. Why isn't Wilson up on charges?

But, never mind. This is all off-topic, and I am guilty as everyone in pursuing the matter. I only mentioned wmd's because almost everyone (without axes to grind) all agree that there weren't wmd's.

If we want to talk about wmd's, someone post a thread and I'll be glad to smash a few more strawmen...it makes my day.

Till then, can we pls stay on the topic of respect (self, included)?

Mike Sigman
01-11-2007, 08:33 PM
Why isn't Wilson up on charges? Very simple and it's on the record. When confronted with the truth, Wilson said, "I misspoke", knowing that if he continued the lie he'd be in jail. Of course, lies and law-breaking mean little if a the liberal media is reporting on a fellow liberal, so this part was dropped almost immediately and not given the day-to-day coverage that would have happened if a Republican had done it. Still... it's on the record, even in the Washington Post. Once again, Neil tries to slip a lie past the readers. But, never mind. This is all off-topic, Oh, of course... let's drop what Wilson is on record of saying in front of the Select Senate Intelligence Committee.... it's a trifle embarrassing because so many Dem's hold up Wilson as a hero.

Regards,

Mike (of course, I know Neil doesn't read these things, because he says so, if you believe him)

Guilty Spark
01-12-2007, 12:26 AM
Hey Neil, I'm glad you didn't take my message the wrong way. I gave it a lot of thought last night and wondered why it struck a chord with me. Was it because our views are so different and I was posting out of personal conflict? I don't think so because I'm finding I agree with a lot of your points.
In the end I think it's because of your delievery. When you see a new message by Neil Mick you can pretty much guess what it's about and your stance on the issue.
I've caught myself responding to some of your political posts (drawn in may be a better word heh) but as you can probabably tell I won't commit to much of the fight. I'm a political light weight where as it's your focus, I know when to pick my battles ;)

As for the WMD issue, I think it was pretty obvious from the start that it was a ploy to get our soldiers on the ground and the citizens behind them.
The government assumed there were WMD so they went in crossing their fingers. How many agencies admitted to bending their intelligence reports or making claims up?
We invaded because of "good" intelligence from places like Pakastan? Crazy. The government wanted to go in so they applied pressure and made it happen.

Suggesting just because we didnt find WMD doesn't mean they were there, to me, is a cop out.
Thats like a cop kicking down my door because the previous owners were drug dealers and saying they heard from people on the street my house was a drug house and just because they didnt find any drugs there, doesn't mean I didn't have any.

Kevin Wilbanks
01-12-2007, 04:33 AM
Suggesting just because we didnt find WMD doesn't mean they were there, to me, is a cop out.
Thats like a cop kicking down my door because the previous owners were drug dealers and saying they heard from people on the street my house was a drug house and just because they didnt find any drugs there, doesn't mean I didn't have any.

The principle you are driving at with this is a standard principle of simple inductive reasoning in regards to empirical claims. What the right is trying to perpetrate here is a standard logical fallacy, often called 'proving a negative'. A more accurate term would be, as this wiki guy coins it "the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)

When someone makes a positive claim, the burden of proof is on them to support the claim, especially in the case of claims that are impossible to disprove, as is the case of WMD's in Iraq. To disprove the claim absolutely would require going back in time and scrutinizing 230,000 square miles of land inch by inch.

Trafficking in such fallacies and preying on their audience's ignorance of basic reasoning is standard operating procedure for right wing demagogues of precisely the breed I mentioned earlier. This issue is really not so off-topic. In my view, perpetrating fallacies with a bullyboy attitude is in itself a form of disrespect - at least to the intelligence of whomever is supposed to be listening.

Kevin Wilbanks
01-12-2007, 05:08 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)

Just noticed that the board software butchered the link. Hope this works.

Guilty Spark
01-12-2007, 06:02 AM
Wow dude I had to read that like 4 times.
You're agreeing with me right? :)

Good point about having to go back and check every single mile.
It's impossible to disprove iraq doesn't have some kinda WMD sitting under 20 miles of sand in a box marked UN releif fund so the arguemnt that just because we haven't found it yet doesn't mean it's not there doesn't hold a lot of water.

Besides, if we DID find some kinda naughty thing in Iraq and it dated back to the 80s we probably wouldn't have to look very far from home to find who sold it to them, unfortinuately.

Mike Sigman
01-12-2007, 08:07 AM
What's interesting to me is to see this continued insistence and trivialization of even the idea that there might have been some WMD's... i.e., the matter is not resolved. Every intelligence service in the world said the same thing, facts like the data in post 42 have come up, and so on... the insistence doesn't stop. It's like watching some experiment in psychology. But the whole anti-Bush, hate-America thing folds if there were WMD's so it's better to not say "maybe", isn't it? Although...... it is sort of dishonest to maintain the position that "no wmd's" has somehow been proved, isn't it?

Mike

Guilty Spark
01-12-2007, 08:57 AM
See Mike I disagree. When someone hates something, say the US for example, their not looking at anything that denies their hate. They will find a reason to hate the US. Give them evidence to the contrary of their argument and they will just ignore it citing false credentials or come up with another reason to hate it.
Even if we did find WMD then people will say that there were too few to cause any harm
OR, and heres the biggie, if we find WMD tomorrow then some people will argue that the US actually moved them there on their own JUST so they could find it and justify the invasion after all.
There's no winning.

Mike Sigman
01-12-2007, 09:11 AM
Oh, I agree. Couple of big bombs going off in a couple of large metro cities and suddenly reality will come back. But that's what it will take. When the 9-11 destruction happened, many of us said "That's one... but it will take at least two before the liberals will realize that these attacks aren't just some television show about other people".

When I lived in Haight-Ashbury in 1968 I remember a neighbor hippy lady-friend, someone who hated the US and "the Pigs" (the cops) sitting on her doorstep one morning, crying and screaming that the cops hadn't responded in time to protect her from a robbery. The hate is there as sort of a child-like game... but when life starts getting real, it's a different story. Oh well.

Mike

odudog
01-12-2007, 10:43 AM
Am I the only one who remembers that the people with the most power in this country and decided to start the whole Iraq debacle kept stating that they new Iraq had WMDs and that they knew where they were? If they knew where they were, why haven't they showed them to us or told us that they have destroyed them? Saddam was talking out the side of his mouth and trying to make himself look all powerful. It was all talk. The people with the power would not listen to the one person right next to them that had a decent head on his shoulders, Colin Powell. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld broke it so now they own it but they are trying despirately to push it onto someone else.

Mike Sigman
01-12-2007, 11:13 AM
The people with the power would not listen to the one person right next to them that had a decent head on his shoulders, Colin Powell. Hmmmmmm... Colin Powell was the one general who opposed the first Gulf War even after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Opposed it. Wanted to "negotiate" in the UN. So when Bush wanted to go follow the recommendation of the CIA and every intel service, including the Brits, France, and Germany, that Saddam had WMD's and would give them to terrorists, Colin said "no, let's negotiate in the UN". So we did. The French made a complete fool of him and he's embarrassed to this day how they played him.

One of the interesting things I like to notice is that no liberal ever likes to mention that the French, Russian, and Chinese were all bribed by Saddam to stall the US from going to war. Not a peep. Why is that? Libs admire them for making money?

Mike

Incoming663
01-12-2007, 01:29 PM
WHERE IS THE RESPECT?

Re "Where Is The Respect," a (what I thought was a generically friendly post on a martial arts forum page) has taken on a life of it's own. I merely intended to respectfully suggest to my fellow peers in the discipline that I came up through the bare-knuckled days of "old School karate" and "warehouse" brawls." But, to get to that point, the first thing that I learned was to respect and show common courtesy to my fellow martial artists. The www.aikiweg.com/forums web site is perhaps the cleanest and most intellectually provocative martial web site that I have come across. I would love to meet and greet everyone of you that responded negatively or positively to my original - and first entry here.
To digress for a moment, as I'm sure most of you know, The EFC International Convention will be held in Miami this October 4th - October 6th. Martial artists from all over the world will be there as I will. For more info about it, contact me at Incoming663@aol.com.
Anyhow, the "...Respect" entry has gone from the thrust of that posting to debates on WMD to what I perceive to be personal attacks at me because of people like Ann Coulter to Bill O'reilly and the breaking down of how some of us express ourselves politically, ideologically, philosophically to one respondent requesting a list of "what REAL men do and What REAL don't do." My abridged answer to that is this: If you are a man, you don't need to ask ME what REAL men do and don't do. Geeze! Lol. I'm not making light of anyone's questions or statements. Far from it. But, at this juncture, I believe that I have been on the defensive long enough and now it's my turn to go a bit on the offensive.
First of all, my pop told me years ago that the best way to lose friends is to discuss religion and/or politics with them. Although I studied Theology in school and am somewhat of a political firebrand in the political arena, but I fail to see what that has to do with the martial arts. I never took a course in all my years in the martials in theology or politics. Personally, this fine web site in not the proper venue for political debates, one's Faith or religious practices. If any of you want to debate politics or religion go to my blog, read some of it and hit me with your best shot if you don't like what you read. http://journals/aol.com/incoming663/DawgBytesfromTheRealBigDawg/ or www.therealbigdawg.com.
The bottom line on "Where Is The Respect" was to encourage simple common courtesy with those whom you may or may not agree or disagree with. That's it. There is no reading the "lines in between the line in between those lines. I'm a straight up guy. I don't live in a glass house (thank goodness - lol) and if some of you wish to judge me by my blog site or any other aspect of what I have written here on this web site, that is your prerogative. Peace out.~Dawg~

Incoming663
01-12-2007, 02:10 PM
Grant is right. Your favorite websites list reads like a who's who of some of the most prominent perpetrators of incivility and vitriol in public political debate today. I don't see how you could be genuine about the sentiment you just posted here and be a fan of such demagogues.

As for your criticism of this forum, in my long experience of such internet boards, it usually seems above average in terms of civility. The only place I've seen significantly more polite exchanges is on boards where all posts are pre-screened by a moderator. In my experience, just as many people get upset by agressive, legitimate debating that sticks to the topic as they do by personal insults, and the inability to distinguish is often what leads to insults. I am quite disciplined about confining my criticisms to a person's ideas and behavior in the debate, yet I am insulted all the time, and often characterized as a "bad guy" by folks who can't tell the difference when the dust has settled.
Sir. There is a difference between a debate and a friendly exchange of ideas. If you want to engage in political debate, contact me @ Incoming663@aol.com or go to www.therealbigdawg.com
Why don't we do a fair Q and A on the hot issues of the day? Best =Dawg

Incoming663
01-12-2007, 02:15 PM
Greetings, sir. I liked your posting. I also liked your "words of wisdom." I have a little saying that goes like this: "When a finger points at the moon, the embicile looks at the finger." Best=Frank

Incoming663
01-12-2007, 02:27 PM
Am I the only one who remembers that the people with the most power in this country and decided to start the whole Iraq debacle kept stating that they new Iraq had WMDs and that they knew where they were? If they knew where they were, why haven't they showed them to us or told us that they have destroyed them? Saddam was talking out the side of his mouth and trying to make himself look all powerful. It was all talk. The people with the power would not listen to the one person right next to them that had a decent head on his shoulders, Colin Powell. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld broke it so now they own it but they are trying despirately to push it onto someone else.

Mr. Braxton, sir. I didn't want to go political on this site, but now that Bubba Clinton's close friend and confidant, Sandy Berger, has been caught going into the National Archives and stealing gosh knows what by stuffing top secret info into his socks and underwear. Now the whole 9/11 Commission's investigation has been compromised. Berger has also compromised our national security by antics. This crook also used a common method that spy's use to transfer top secret info to another by the use of "dead drops." It's no wonder this whole Iraqi thing has gone sideways with that kind of turn-over from the Clinton White House. Best =Dawg

Kevin Leavitt
01-12-2007, 03:07 PM
This has got to be the most bizzare thread we have ever had on Aikiweb! :)

Neil Mick
01-12-2007, 03:23 PM
Mike,

Take a look at the thread-title: it's called "Where is the Respect?" For this reason, I am assuming that the topic is a tone of respect, within forum-threads.

In the few times I bother to read your posts, you have taken time out to insult me on everything from my veracity, to my mental-state. And so, I put you on ignore. Your response, of course, has been to troll my posts, doggedly using your usual tactics of smear, mislabeling, and personal assaults.

And, as you know, I have several times offered you the opportunity to clear the bad-books by PM'ing me, and agreeing to conduct a polite discussion, free of personal assault.

My inbox remains empty, and (going by your last, successful attempt to shut down a thread) you persist in similar attacks. But, here we are in a thread entitled "respect," and so I will remove the ignore feature, for now, to address you directly.

Frankly, Mike: your sources are laughable. Newsmax and Frontpagemagazine are hardly the heights of journalistic endeavors. More to the point, the few times you DO link a source, it is either based upon a whole lot of misinformation, often repeated (as a lie repeated many times, becomes the truth); or simply a hit-piece that spends the bulk of its pixils attacking the character of a person, without exploring whether or not the veracity, of the author.

Much, in the same way, as you do, here.

I believe I understand why you do this: on some level, you know that most of your arguments would not hold up under a reasonable debate mindful of courtesy, and so you go for the low-blow. I've seen it before, many times: and I am sure that I'll have the misfortune of seeing it again, after you tire of this immaturity, and move on to better things.

But, just for our reading audience (as, I am positive that showing you your error will prove NOTHING to you...how could it? You're still stuck back in 2003, beliebing that wmd's exist, when most of the world...Bush included...has moved on) , I am going to show you how easy it is to dismantle your weak little strawmen.

Very simple and it's on the record. When confronted with the truth, Wilson said, "I misspoke", knowing that if he continued the lie he'd be in jail

Yes, and if you'd bothered to read out the full transcript when he said that he "misspoke," he was hardly admitting to lying. Your assumption that he was covering himself is simply that...an assumption.

BLITZER: So when the committee says that you told them you had misspoken, what did you misspeak?

WILSON: Well, actually, what I misspoke was, when I misspoke to the committee, when I spoke to the staff -- this interview took place 15 months after The Washington Post article appeared. I did not have a chance to review the article. They did not show me the article.

They threw it out there, and the question I took as being a rather generic question: Could you have misspoken? Yes, I am male, I'm over 50. By definition, I can misspeak. I have gone back since and taken a look at this particular article. It refers to an unidentified former government official. If it is referring to me, it is a misattribution, of facts that were already in the public domain and had been so since March.

Of course, lies and law-breaking mean little if a the liberal media is reporting on a fellow liberal,

Again, another oft-repeated lie. "Liberal media?" Where were the "Liberal" media, in 2003, when we were treated to a parade of military on the mainstream news? Almost no anti-war ppl were interviewed.

The studies showing just how "liberal" the mainstream media is (not) are easy to find. But, never mind, you know it all, Mike...you're sharp, and know when ppl are lying.... :rolleyes: uh huh.

so this part was dropped almost immediately and not given the day-to-day coverage that would have happened if a Republican had done it.

Or, perhaps, it has no basis in fact, and was merely a canard for the bloggers and pundits to jump on, and to be echoed by the online Bush-faithful choir.

Still... it's on the record, even in the Washington Post.

I am really laughing at this statement here, Mike. Isn't the Washington Post part of the "liberal media?" So which is it? The mainstream, Liberal media covered up this little "charade" of Wilson's, or it's easy to find, and all on record? You can't have it both ways.

But, OK, let's just be objective media-watchdogs for a second, and do Mike's job for him. Let's go find the source and see if he's right.

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle)

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

I've read through this article twice, Mike: and nowhere does it state that Wilson lied to protect himself from going to jail. Also, as we all know from Judith Miller's shoddy work at the NYT, one has to take these kinds of hit-articles with a grain of salt. Judith Miller, for her part, parroted whatever Achmed Chalabi wanted her to hear; who parroted what info he received from the Pentagon, as a justification to go to war; whereupon the Pentagon THEN offered up Miller's articles as justification of their own conclusions. In short, an echo-chamber was set up.

But, of course, you don't really care about hearing all sides of a discussion, do you? You'd rather listen to the sweet sound of damage-control--the cacophonous noise of a horde of pundits throwing mud in the face of investigators in the hopes that the stink of outing Valerie Plame will fade in the minds of the readers (the fact that Joe Wilson joined the Kerry team during an election year had NOTHING to do with it, either, I'm sure).

A good media-watchdog listens to all quarters, and so let's hear it,straight from the dog's mouth:

Second conclusion: “Rather that speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.”

This conclusion states that I told the committee staff that I “may have become confused about my own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the names and dates on the documents were not correct.” At the time that I was asked that question, I was not afforded the opportunity to review the articles to which the staff was referring. I have now done so.
On March 7, 2003 the Director General of the IAEA reported to the United Nations Security Council that the documents that had been given to him were “not authentic”. His deputy, Jacques Baute, was even more direct, pointing out that the forgeries were so obvious that a quick Google search would have exposed their flaws. A State Department spokesman was quoted the next day as saying about the forgeries “We fell for it.” From that time on the details surrounding the documents became public knowledge and were widely reported. I was not the source of information regarding the forensic analysis of the documents in question; the IAEA was.

The first time I spoke publicly about the Niger issue was in response to the State Department's disclaimer. On CNN a few days later, in response to a question, I replied that I believed the US government knew more about the issue than the State Department spokesman had let on and that he had misspoken. I did not speak of my trip.

My first public statement was in my article of July 6 published in the New York Times, written only after it became apparent that the administration was not going to deal with the Niger question unless it was forced to. I wrote the article because I believed then, and I believe now, that it was important to correct the record on the statement in the President's State of the Union address which lent credence to the charge that Iraq was actively reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. I believed that the record should reflect the facts as the US government had known them for over a year. The contents of my article do not appear in the body of the report and is not quoted in the “additional comments.” In that article, I state clearly that “As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors - they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government - and were probably forged. (And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)”

The first time I actually saw what were represented as the documents was when Andrea Mitchell, the NBC correspondent handed them to me in an interview on July 21. I was not wearing my glasses and could not read them. I have to this day not read them. I would have absolutely no reason to claim to have done so. My mission was to look into whether such a transaction took place or could take place. It had not and could not. By definition that makes the documents bogus.
The text of the “additional comments” also asserts that “during Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had “debunked” the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.”

So, let's construct a simple timeline, to show the turn of events:

1. Joe Wilson appears before a Committee filled with Republican loyalists. Not liking Wilson's findings, they question how he could know the reports were faked.

2. Not having seen the documents but having interviewed just about everyone who could have possibly been involved with the matter, Wilson makes the simple statement that the empirical facts speak for themselves.

3. Susan Schmidt writes her hitpiece; not having read it, Wilson is questioned about it, on CNN. Wilson says yeah, I'm 50 and human...it's possible I misspoke.

4. Rather than face the plain and obvious fact that the President knowingly lied about the yellowcake fiasco and the illegal outing a CIA operative as a personal vendetta, the Rightwing paparazzi go on the offensive as a form of damage-control.

5. Rather than see all sides of a debate, Mikey parrots what facts he likes, and ignores the rest.

Once again, Neil tries to slip a lie past the readers.

And here's the difference btw you and me, Mike. You like to suggest that I'm a liar, deranged, et al. I don't need to stoop so low, to make my point.

I figure that you do such a good job hanging yourself, with your own disrespect (I've even had ppl who normally disagree with me, PM me and grouse about your sliming tactics).

Oh, of course... let's drop what Wilson is on record of saying in front of the Select Senate Intelligence Committee.... it's a trifle embarrassing because so many Dem's hold up Wilson as a hero.

No, not at all. As I did above, let's see what Wilson had to say. But, let's hear the WHOLE truth, not some half-truth, desperate attempt at spindoctoring.

And now, we'll be treated to a healthy round of more spin, with a healthy side of invective. I hope not...I just took this opportunity to show how EASY it is to deconstruct your strawmen.

P.S. I am hoping that you take this opportunity to obey forum guidelines and employ etiquette in your posts. Enough of the personal attacks. I really couldn't care less what you say about my favorite writers, leaders, et al...as public figures are fair game...but personal slurs only bring the debate down.

If you persist, I can, of course, put you on ignore (which I will), but henceforth I am taking a zero-tolerance to the slurs, and I will duly note them to Jun.
Regards,

Mike (of course, I know Neil doesn't read these things, because he says so, if you believe him)

For now, the ignore is off. The next step is up to you.

Mike Sigman
01-12-2007, 03:31 PM
This has got to be the most bizzare thread we have ever had on Aikiweb! :)Wow... I totally agree, now. ;)

Mike

Ron Tisdale
01-12-2007, 03:39 PM
With respect, good bye everyone, have a great weekend, see you in the new week.

;)
Best,
Ron

Mike Sigman
01-12-2007, 03:43 PM
You have a good weekend, too, Ron. ;)

Respectfully.

Mike

Neil Mick
01-12-2007, 03:44 PM
Hey Neil, I'm glad you didn't take my message the wrong way. I gave it a lot of thought last night and wondered why it struck a chord with me. Was it because our views are so different and I was posting out of personal conflict? I don't think so because I'm finding I agree with a lot of your points.

Yes, I surmised that. Frankly, I think that if we sat down and chatted face to face: we'd find agreement on several issues. Political debate is often conflict-centered, unfortunately.

In the end I think it's because of your delievery.

We all have our own burdens. I'm still working on my delivery: as Mike is still working on that objectivity-thing. :p

When you see a new message by Neil Mick you can pretty much guess what it's about and your stance on the issue.

Oh really? :yuck:

Bet you can't guess my stances on Bush's impeachment, China, or discussing politics in the dojo...? ;)

I've caught myself responding to some of your political posts (drawn in may be a better word heh) but as you can probabably tell I won't commit to much of the fight. I'm a political light weight where as it's your focus, I know when to pick my battles ;)

It's what I like to talk about, here. I DO talk about non-political topics, too. My blog, for instance, is totally free of my political viewpoints.

As for the WMD issue, I think it was pretty obvious from the start that it was a ploy to get our soldiers on the ground and the citizens behind them.

Agreed.

The government assumed there were WMD so they went in crossing their fingers. How many agencies admitted to bending their intelligence reports or making claims up?

What I find interesting is that they actually believed Hussein had chemical/biological weapons...even tho most of the objective observers and weapons-inspectors were saying that he couldn't. When they crossed into Iraq, the generals ordered their soldiers to put on the ABC suits.

We invaded because of "good" intelligence from places like Pakastan? Crazy. The government wanted to go in so they applied pressure and made it happen.

Yeah, this was definitely a case of political will pushing the envelope in the hopes of finding something out, later. Rumsfeld/Cheney cherry-picking intel in the "Office of Special Plans" is a good illustration of this dynamic.

Suggesting just because we didnt find WMD doesn't mean they were there, to me, is a cop out.

Nah...I really know what happened to them. Hussein made a deal with Elvis and the fairies of never-neverland. They're still hiding them, there: awaiting the day when Hussein comes back to re-take Iraq, much like King Arthur. :crazy: :freaky:

Thats like a cop kicking down my door because the previous owners were drug dealers and saying they heard from people on the street my house was a drug house and just because they didnt find any drugs there, doesn't mean I didn't have any.

Couldn't have said better, myself. :cool:

Incoming663
01-12-2007, 03:45 PM
This has got to be the most bizzare thread we have ever had on Aikiweb! :)
Exlpain?=Frank

Neil Mick
01-12-2007, 04:08 PM
Am I the only one who remembers that the people with the most power in this country and decided to start the whole Iraq debacle kept stating that they new Iraq had WMDs and that they knew where they were?

No, you're not. But, I'm hoping that someone would start a thread on its own. I love reading wmd conspiracy-theories...sort of like a "Da Vinci Code" plotline, for the political National Enquirer sect... :freaky:

If they knew where they were, why haven't they showed them to us or told us that they have destroyed them? Saddam was talking out the side of his mouth and trying to make himself look all powerful. It was all talk.

Yes, it was. But, IMO, the issue is the present. We have a President now who, in the words of Molly Ivans, "Hasn't the good sense God gave a duck." He seems heedless of the implications of the November elections.

The people with the power would not listen to the one person right next to them that had a decent head on his shoulders, Colin Powell.

OK, all true: but let me just point something out (and, hopefully, shock Grant by stating the unexpected :freaky: ) : if we were winning in Iraq, what do you think the American public's response would be?

Let's face it: if the war in Iraq were going well, the whole tone of this thread would be different. Mike's assumptions would be considered generally right, and the whole illegality of the issues wouldn't be given serious thought. The whole other sorry messes...Abu Ghraib; Iraqi death-squads in the al-Malaki gov't; the massacres at Fallujah...all of that would be written off, to the "costs" of war, and swept aside.

Who cares if we violated international law, if the Iraqi's are "free?" As a whole, the American public is self-centered. 9-11 looms large in our minds, but the numerous 9-11's we have visited upon the Iraqi people only takes front-stage because we're losing.

It was the same in Vietnam. Sad, but true.

Incoming663
01-12-2007, 05:21 PM
Boy howdy! Did you ever score a knock-out or what? One of the best postings that I have EVER seen on any site regarding ANYTHING. You, sir, certainly know your subject matter. Yep. The tongue is swifter than the sword in this case. Kudos to you, sir. Cheers=Dawg (Frank)

Neil Mick
01-13-2007, 12:12 AM
Boy howdy! Did you ever score a knock-out or what? One of the best postings that I have EVER seen on any site regarding ANYTHING. You, sir, certainly know your subject matter. Yep. The tongue is swifter than the sword in this case. Kudos to you, sir. Cheers=Dawg (Frank)

(if you meant me) Thanks, Frank! :D :cool:
(if you didn't mean me) Whoops! :blush: :blush:

Kevin Leavitt
01-13-2007, 02:42 AM
Frank,

It is bizzare because you started it one way, then it goes another way...then we get into politics....then into personal issues, then back again. Everybody's talking passionately about something...but yet....nothing.

Sort of like no focus....I am not sure what we are talking about and why.

Neil Mick
01-13-2007, 03:04 PM
Frank,

It is bizzare because you started it one way, then it goes another way...then we get into politics....then into personal issues, then back again.

But Kevin...don't forget...the personal, IS political... :freaky:

Incoming663
01-15-2007, 04:26 AM
Re: Where Is The Respect?
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=164738#post164738
Posted by: Kevin Leavitt
On: Yesterday 03:42 AM

Frank,

It is bizzare because you started it one way, then it goes another way...then we get into politics....then into personal issues, then back again. Everybody's talking passionately about something...but yet....nothing.

Sort of like no focus....I am not sure what we are talking about and why.
************
Re: Where Is The Respect?
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=164763#post164763
Posted by: Neil Mick
On: Yesterday 04:04 PM

Frank,

It is bizzare because you started it one way, then it goes another way...then we get into politics....then into personal issues, then back again.

But Kevin...don't forget...the personal, IS political... :freaky:
******************************************************************************** ********************************************************
[B]Incoming663@aol.com <Incoming663@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, sir. What a trip this one little supposedly innocuous posting has
> turned into. I'm part of GM Andy Watford's staff and last Thursday we discussed
> the intrapersonal and interpersonal jealousies and the political aspects that
> somehow worm their way into the martials. Btw, Andy is the successor to the
> late David German's US TAI. We (Watford) and I didn't like each other when
> we first met way back in the early 1970's ... both new blackbelts (with
> blackbeltitus - lol.) We had just started taking from the late GM Virgil Kimmey
> and we both knew that we were bound to get into it sooner or later. We did
> and he kicked my big 6' 5" 242 pound butt then and can still do it now. Gm
> Watford is about the size of the late great Ed Parker. But now-a-days, we are
> best friends.
> But I digress. POLITICS screws the pooch every time it raises it's ugly
> head and when it does the obvious next step is character assignation and
> personal jabs. I've been there, done that. I'm no angel and certainly no prude but
> there is a time and place for everything. When I step into the dojo (so to
> speak) I try to leave all the other issues outside the doors. Anyhow,
> enjoyed your email, and stay in touch.~Frank (Dawg)
>
http://journals.aol.com/incoming663/DawgBytesfromTheRealBigDawg/
www.therealbigdawg.com


Yours,
AikiWeb Aikido Forums team

Neil Mick
01-15-2007, 03:17 PM
Yours,
AikiWeb Aikido Forums team

Yes, yes...but, who IS this mysterious "AikiWeb Aikido Forums Team," and what do they REALLY want...??