MissMolsonIndy,
Since you took the time to respond, I'll offer up my rebuttal.
MissMolsonIndy said:
Posing questions on this forum in order to determine readers' opinions with regards to â Å“left-wingâ ? interpretations of Canadian and US Foreign Policy, is equivalent to finding a needle in a haystack. This has been addressed several times already; don't argue for the sake of arguing.
Indeed. These questions are loaded with my own bias, much like any other opinion that I hold. And while I realize, and agree with you, that the majority of these questions should have been re-phrased in a more objective manner, judging by the responses I've received thus far, I have yet to run into an opinion that runs parallel with my own. Which tells me two things: Firstly, the majority of you are very capable of recognizing and pinpointing bias, and secondly, the â Å“insinuationsâ ? and â Å“pejorative statements,â ? ingrained in my questions, have by no means swayed the individuals on this forum, if anything, my ingrained bias has forced them to think more critically about the questions.
I find it hard to accept as true that you believe that you can collect completely â Å“neutralâ ? data, on a subjective issue (not to mention one that the public feels strongly about). The fact of the matter is there's no getting around bias in a situation of the sort. There are certainly measures (some of which I've failed to reproduce) that you can take to help eliminate it, but to completely do away with it is impossible if you are collecting data from human beings, who are cognitive, emotional and who piece together a picture of the world that is comprehensible and workable in their frame of thought from social experience. Even if you have taken all of the necessary measures, what â Å“groupings of society,â ? respond to your questionnaire (with participants chosen at large, and at random) is beyond your control. We see the same patterns in the Canadian Electoral system. If Canada could only achieve a voter-turnout of approximately 60% in the last election, at best, what makes you think that the same doesn't occur in polls and other statistics? Individuals have a predisposition to exclude themselves from issues that tend not to concern them, or similarly issues that they stand â Å“neutralâ ? on.
Old Guy really said it best. Instead of asking a question that begins with a negative opinion on Missile Defence/Iraq/George W Bush/whatever and then asking the question, why don't you simply ask the question?
eg:
instead of:
14. The Vietnam War was launched on "government lies passed on by pliant mass media," where "North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 -- and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later." The Gulf War, was sold to the United States, "the mother of all clients," by a "it bleeds, it leads" story about babies being tossed out of incubators by Iraqi soldiers. As officials and the mass media learned of the witness's blood ties with the Kuwaiti government, the story began to fall apart, and the war was launched on false information/propaganda. The Iraq War was launched by the United States of America on the basis that Iraq was developing and concealing weapons of mass destruction, with no evidence that these weapons of mass destruction even exist, is it viable that government lies and deception have once again "sold a war" to the media and public?
couldn't you just ask:
Do you feel that the media plays a role in legitimizing or presenting a state's justification for war? If so, what do you think is the nature of this relationship?
I respect and admire your ability to think outside the box. And while I can't answer your questions, it will definitely be a criticism explored within the context of my paper.
I'm unsure of how you have formulated your views on issues in the past, but it is the responsibility of the reader to look for sources and information upon which his/her position will be based; it is not my place to supply you with â Å“qualitative substance.â ?
No. You're offering of the "bone" of 49 Generals is presented in a way which attempts to lead a person to the answer you want to hear. When asking someone about what
their stance (and hence their own supply of qualitative substance) is on Canadian participation in BMD, the point of 49 Generals is irrelevent.
I could rephrase the question in many ways and the notion of the "expert" would be equally superfluous. The question is wrong because it injects a notion of someone's opinion into the intended answer and doesn't give the person "all the facts":
Parliament told President Bush that missile defense is a waste of funds, and urged Canada not to join. What is your position on this issue?
or
Wayne Gretzky told President Bush that missile defense is a waste of funds, and urged Canada not to join. What is your position on this issue?
or
Spongebob Squarepants told President Bush that missile defense is a waste of funds, and urged Canada not to join. What is your position on this issue?
Do you see what I'm getting at?
This is not meant to be taken as a personal attack, Infanteer, but I don't see how this has anything to do with the question. If you don't hold an opinion on a specific latter, then leave it blank.
It has everything to do with the question. You've attempted to justify the utility of the BMD program based on costs. A cost/benefit analysis is one good way to approach the issue. I countered with my own thoughts on a cost/benefit analysis. Is the cost of the BMD so large that it justifies ignoring ways to prevent the cost of a major metropolitan center being immolated because someone like Kim Jong Il had a bad hair day?
Indeed. The world is about to witness another arms race. However, I disagree with you that the â Å“increased levels of dangerâ ? have not been given care and consideration: A â Å“Non-Proliferation Treatyâ ? is currently under debate, and is expected to pass through next year some time. The treaty demands the disarmament of nuclear weaponry, and all preventable measures to be taken in order to ensure that the proliferation of nuclear weapons does not spread to rogue states.
Nuclear weapons are the latest incarnation of man's desire to have the "nicest car on the block" - whether that "car" happens to be the largest and strongest warhorses, the Arsenal of Venice, the largest cannon, the
HMS Dreadnought, or the latest MIRV, it's part and parcel of civilization. I don't see how a "Non-Proliferation Treaty" (There has been many treaties on Nuclear Disarmament - check them out) is going to suddenly lead us to a utopia. It would similar to the land-mine treaty; everyone says it's a great thing, but in reality it doesn't solve much (and it just sets people who actually believe it, like us, back one step in the big rat race).
Being that there are literally thousands of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of China and Russia, the notion that the BMD, which is designed to shoot down a few loose missiles, suddenly leading these two states to get paranoid and build thousands more seems to be a little far-fetched.
Besides, I don't see what the notion of BMD (counter-missile technology) has to do with Non-Proliferation (the metastasizing of nuclear technology).
Which question are you referring to?
The notion that the US Ballistic Missile Defence will breed
"an atmosphere where more conflict and more terrorist activity emerges, due to the fact that states (particularly those who do not participate in the "global defense system") feel more vulnerable?" (Your words). The BMD isn't designed to stop a bomb in a container ship, it is aimed at states that possess limited nuclear arsenals and may be inclined to use them.
While I cannot personally identify with the statement made above, I'm sure it holds its ground. Statistics are shaky, and those statistics only came from a single poll, in reality, the figures could prove to be much different. While I cannot offer you statistics upon which everyone will agree on, I can say that I sense an overwhelming sense of hostility towards US foreign policy in Canada, and many other parts of the globe. When President Bush makes his appearance in Ottawa next week, protestors are expected to explode onto the streets. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.
Is this "overwhelming sense of hostility toward US foreign policy" genuine though? Just because a few hundred idiots decide to march down the street opposing "US occupation of Afghanistan" and "Dictator Bush and his Fascist Lies" doesn't mean that the entire population is up in arms. I believe that tacit approval for the US comes from the "silent majority" - why is it that most of the animosity towards the US seems to only pop up when cameras are around and seems to be propagated by the same people who march against Globalization, The depletion of the ozone layer, and human rights abuses in Tibet.
Try not to confuse a few noisy peons with a general consensus.
That being said, I won't deny that there is genuine opposition to the US policies, but I'd say that this is attributed to a few reasons (among others):
1) Other interests: Was France really concerned about unilateralist or the Iraqi people - or were they more interested in opposing a war which would put the US in the forefront of the world's foreign polices. It seems to me that the French were real eager to try and set the EU up as a legitimate counter-balance to US hegemony following the end of the Soviet Union - a plan which fell flat on its face.
2) Penis Envy: Many people just "hate" the US as a knee-jerk reaction because of the fact that the US
is the Hegemonic power on the globe today. Nobody seems to be protesting the multitude of unilateralist invasions France has launched throughout Africa in the last few decades to secure it's own interests. Ending up on the top of the pile will naturally garner the United States loads or angst and ire - and envy - by default; it was the same for Rome, Venice, Spain, and Britain. However, if you sit a normal citizen down and actually set the issues out, I have a feeling they'll take the SUV driving American over the guy in a cave that wants to murder their family.
I agree, however, keep in mind that it is the participation of this fickle mob that democracy requires in order to keep it functioning.
Yes, put the job of the citizenry is to send representatives to focus on and deliberate the issues for us and to hold them accountable to the duties of their Office, not to decide policy on a whim.
Read Edmund Burke.
You've made an excellent point: the public-at-large does not go to great lengths to inform themselves, and if nothing else, I would argue that the public is largely uninformed on a variety of issues. Considering the mass media, and the national newspapers constitute the two major forms in which people acquire information (with a relatively small proportion of the population actually looking to alternative sources), both of which are infinitely concentrated into the hands of few both in Canada and the United States, you have a public informed by components of the mass media, each pushing their own agenda/ â Å“spinâ ? on the issue. That being said, it would not come as a surprise to me to learn that the Canadian populace was being pumped with information with a â Å“spin,â ? or disinformation.
I wouldn't say that we're "pumped full of spin"; the average Canadian citizen is at least smart enough to form their own opinions. The problem is "cognitive dissonance"; when someone latches onto a particular idea that appeals to their world view, they are apt to only really consider evidence that supports their thinking. Thus, cognitive dissonance leads them to take a position without thoroughly examining the issue. We're all guilty (as fallible human beings) of cognitive dissonance at times, but I think that the relatively spoiled lifestyle that most Canadians have been lucky enough to inherit leads society to become a little too dissonant a little too fast. It's hard to sell pragmaticism to someone through the comfort of their own home.
If the UN is the legislation of the individual states that compose it, then is it not the case that all members are expected to abide by its legislation?
The UN has no sovereignty over the acts of independent states. Yes, it is the duty of signatories to uphold the Charter, but considering that the UN has been a political pawn-game since day 1, do you really expect
any state to adopt such an altruistic view to the detriment of their own interests?
Have you considered that perhaps the reason that its legitimacy has been significantly diminished is because the strongest nation in the globe, and the most important player in the UN consistently defy it? I certainly think that if the United States participated in the committee and bound itself thereby, the UN would be more enforceable in the international context.
So it is okay for the US to enforce its decisions on others through bullying in the UN, but it is completely unacceptable and bordering on fascism for the US to enforce its decisions and bully others outside of the UN? The UN will not make politics "clean". Go back to you Poli Sci 100 class, what is politics all about? Power. Whether its exercised in the UN or out of the UN, there is always going to be winners and losers. You seem to be piling the failure of the UN on the US, but did it ever occur to you that the UN might be failing for more structural reasons - ie: the fact that the United States and the Sudan are viewed as equals?
While my information with regards to the â Å“Gulf of Tonkinâ ? incident starting the â Å“Gulf War,â ? is debatable, the American government sold further justification of the war to the American public. Had the Americans fully supported the war in the first place, the American government wouldn't have found itself in a place where it needed to spread lies and deception in return for public support: â Å“If it bleeds, it leads.â ?
See Old Guy's interpretation of the event. I think it firmly points out the old adage that "The First Casulty in War is the Truth" - but I'd be wary of saying that the abuse of truth is a systematic and continous ploy by spooky government guys.
[Edited for spelling mistakes and grammatical errors]
.
