Sep.11 Independant Enquiry Deadline...

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
The same can be said of you Bonkey.

Huh? Exactly how can you say that I question other peoples rights or motives in discussing Irish-centric things because they're not Irish??? Or for any other nationality???

Please...enlighten me. How can this be said about me?????

However, what I was referring to is why you have taken a particular interest in the internal politics of my country.

1) Because the internal politics of a nation are the primary driving factor behind the external politics of a nation

2) Because the item in question is an issue directly affecting some of the most significant external "politics" (or implementations of foreign policy) that your nation - or any other for that matter - has ben involved in in the past quarter century.

3) Because you and your ilk constantly tell those who dare to do so that a large part of our "problem" is that we simply don't understand America, Americans, and the American Way. How can I possibly gain a better understanding if I don't question the current and past actions of your government? Are you suggesting that I instead limit my education to the reading of articles written by the media you yourself are so scathing of? Or should I - being non-American - just accept that I am of a lesser stature than you, and accept that I should no question or pass judgerment on The Great US, whilst sitting back and watching the US and its citizens pass judgement on the rest of the world instead.

4) Because, in cause you have missed it, the name of this forum is "Politics". If we had meant "Irish Politics", thats what we would have called it.

Is it to give you satisfaction of some sort that this is a backwards country and thus nothing it does is right, just, or politically justifiable in your own accord?

I have tried to politely point this out before, but you're obviously not getting it, so let me be blunt :

If I wanted to criticise America, I would criticise America. If I wanted to say I thought the US president, government, or people was/were wrong, I would say so.

Now go back and read the post I started this topic on. See where I wrote "I'm wondering...." and "I have to question"??? Well, in English (as opposed, perhaps, to American which I may be mistaken in assuming I understand) questions generally imply a lack of certainty, and a degree of inquisitiveness to determine the facts. At the very least, except when rhetorical, they imply a desire for someone to answer them.

There was a reason I phrased things as questions rather than simply putting my pre-formed opinion out there. Its beause I was actually asking questions rather than purely expressing an immoveable opinion. I

know that mightn't fit well with your world-view of American-hating critics who have nothing but a myopic vision of your great nation, and who love nothing better than to cast aspersions at it....but your vision of the world doesn't change reality.

I was asking for opinion because I hadn't fully formed mine. So unless you want to come straight out and call me a liar I'd suggest that you accept what I'm saying....because I'm pretty sure I understand my thought-processes better than you do.

Of course, your unwillingness / inability to actually address the questions asked is as enlightening to my search for information as any answer you could have offered.

I can understand the foreign policy issues since those decisions go beyond our borders, but internal politics rarely do.

So, let me get this straight....

You see the events of 9/11 and the ensuing aftermath as "internal politics" ????

We're talking about an attack on American soil by foreign nationals which instigated two regime-changing wars half-way across the globe, as well as countless changes in the day-to-day practices of how the US treats foreigners, with countless knock-on effects in terms of how our government(s) now do things in order to deal with the changing world the events of 9/11 have precipitated.

You call this "internal politics" and still have the temerity to accuse me of flawed logic???????? Thats brilliant.

As some have stated on this board, it was America's fault for putting Saddam in power. If you hold that premise true, don't you think we should be the ones to take care of the problem in the first place since it was our fault?

I fail to see what relevance this has to the questions I asked, nor the topic I was discussing. I've already asked you to stop trying to dodge the issue, but I guess you're just not going to give up. You'd rather tackle what you think is my agenda rather than what I'm asking.

Are the questions that hard?

What I am trying to do Bonkey is for you to differentiate the findings of the commission and the proceedures of the commission. They are mutually exclusive at this point in time. You are holding that if the commssion does not have enough time, then the findings are automatically flawed. To me, that is flawed logic.

Geromino...excplain to me why, if the comission is complaining that it won't have time to write up its report under the current deadline, that this does not automatically imply that the report must be...at the very least... incomplete?

If someone says to you "I won't have time to repair your car properly before you pick it up tomorrow", does this not automatically imply that the car is not fully repaired???

Therefore, if the comission are saying "we do not have time to complete our work", then it stands to reason that the work must be incomplete. And the comission have said this, and continue to say this when talking about Bush's new deadline.

When someone is producing something that they say is incomplete, how can it be viewed as anthing but incomplete? You call that flawed logic. Exactly where is the flaw?

Or is the flaw in assuming that "incomplete" is not as trustworthy, definitive, or certain as "complete"?

I dunno about you, but I look at the WMD "intelligence" concerning Iraq, and see the danger in assuming the trustworthiness of something that is known to be incomplete....but maybe you can show me where I'm wrong in that?

sovtek

Seeing that Bush reversed his stand on not delaying the deadline for the 9/11 commission.
Here's where the political agendas Germ mentioned start showing...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13964-2004Feb4.html

"A senior Republican official said the White House acceded to the postponement after learning from commission sources that the report is likely to "have some criticism of the White House, but will not conclude that there was a failure by Bush himself.