Butt Out CIA

[pono1]

Somebody should point out that it's actually a Republic, like the US

"The CIA laid out several scenarios and said life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better, and they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like....We stand for things."

 

[EmmaJane]

Hurray!!! A debate on this forum that has not digressed in to squabbling among the UK and Us!!!.

I have not been around for a while as it was starting to feel that any thread opened in the cooler ended up in a squabble about Iraq. However I have really enjoyed reading this thread and found some of the posts really interesting. I did have two questions. Firstly I picked up a lot that a lot of people don't trust their respective governments (me included!) I was curious if people felt this was a more modern trend or we are just more open about our feelings about government. There are certainly more ways now to communicate our feelings! The second things was with regard to the use of a film/document to support an argument. I was under the impression that most of what is written about political / philosophy or most other social sciences was based on opinion. But maybe some opinions are more "factual" than others?

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Firstly I picked up a lot that a lot of people don't trust their respective governments (me included!) I was curious if people felt this was a more modern trend or we are just more open about our feelings about government.

It may just be that it's now safer to express dissatisfaction. I know that's not true everywhere, but compare the way it was a few hundred years ago in most western countries to the way it now. Back then, if you spoke out against pretty much anything to do with the ruling body, you'd be looking over your shoulder for a long time afterwards.

There are certainly more ways now to communicate our feelings!

Definitely a major part of being able to speak out in (relative) safety.

The second things was with regard to the use of a film/document to support an argument. I was under the impression that most of what is written about political / philosophy or most other social sciences was based on opinion. But maybe some opinions are more "factual" than others?

That's true of anything really, isn't it? History is written by the victors, as the saying goes, but I think it's become a case of history being written by anybody who takes the time to do so. In this age of anyone, informed or otherwise, being able to churn out a book, film, document or - especially - website on the topic of their choosing, one person's opinion quickly becomes adopted as fact. You only have to take a look around this site to see how certain people use, shall we say, 'questionable' sources to back up whatever argument they're trying to get across. Even when it's a long-standing source of ideas like, for example, the bible. It's so open to interpretation, it can often cause as many problems as it removes.

That's just my opinion, of course.

 

[dan-cat]

Hurray!!! A debate on this forum that has not digressed in to squabbling among the UK and Us!!!.

SShhhh... no-one's noticed yet all the children are sitting quietly

Firstly I picked up a lot that a lot of people don't trust their respective governments (me included!) I was curious if people felt this was a more modern trend or we are just more open about our feelings about government.

I would argue definitely. When monarchies held power, the monarch was seen as being closer to God than his/her subjects. So not trusting in your monarch was like saying not trusting in God's judgement. As the monarch was seen as being appointed by the Almighty. "God bless the Queen" and all that.

Republics remove that figure-head and thus you don't have to denounce God to denounce your leader. Some still attempt to play this card but nowadays I don't believe it has much influence. In the US, for example, any deification is placed on the country itself, not the actual leader.

The second things was with regard to the use of a film/document to support an argument. I was under the impression that most of what is written about political / philosophy or most other social sciences was based on opinion. But maybe some opinions are more "factual" than others?

I think this is laziness on our part. Pictures are so much easier than words and there seems to be a demand on our parts that we be entertained whilst learning. The recent release of that 9/11 hijacking movie is a classic example of this. Historical documents aren't enough anymore because nobody would bother to read them but make a movie with appropriate special effects and music then people will consume it. Unfortunately the authenticity of the document usually suffers under the weight of consumer demand.

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Hurray!!! A debate on this forum that has not digressed in to squabbling among the UK and Us!!!.

You're right, this makes a pleasant change.

How about a heartfelt request to all contributors to this thread - just this one, that's all - not to rise to any deliberately-phrased attempts to turn it into another slanging match?

 

[EmmaJane]

Thanks for the replies

First is it true that Ontario, Canada was formerly Cardiff, Wales. WOW you learn something new every day!!!!

Secondly; I was thinking in more modern times as a comparison. I think we can all agree that however you felt about a ruling group a few hundred years ago it was better not to say too much!!! But what if we were to compare say 1940s to present day. I'm sure (rightly or wrongly) their were groups in the UK who were not "happy" about our role in WWII, did they speak out in the same way? or was their lack of national attention due more to a lack of access to communication links rather than a sense of loyalty??

 

[dan-cat]

I'm sure (rightly or wrongly) their were groups in the UK who were not "happy" about our role in WWII, did they speak out in the same way? or was their lack of national attention due more to a lack of access to communication links rather than a sense of loyalty??

I would say there was little difference. What of Sir Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists? They were making their extreme views perfectly clear until they were clamped down on by the UK government.

 

[EmmaJane]

How about a heartfelt request to all contributors to this thread - just this one, that's all - not to rise to any deliberately-phrased attempts to turn it into another slanging match?

Oh yes please, as now I have mentioned it it could be technically my fault

 

[EmmaJane]

I would say there was little difference. What of Sir Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists? They were making their extreme views perfectly clear until they were clamped down on by the UK government.

Quite true......

 

[Matt Greatorex]

First is it true that Ontario, Canada was formerly Cardiff, Wales. WOW you learn something new every day

Yep, although if you visit the old site (just left of the Severn Bridge) you can see they've done a pretty good job of rebuilding. You can hardly see the join

 

[EmmaJane]

Yep, although if you visit the old site (just left of the Severn Bridge) you can see they've done a pretty good job of rebuilding. You can hardly see the join

So the world really is getting smaller

 

[EmmaJane]

Oh by the way what happened to all my posts??? I know I have been away a while but I'm pretty sure it was not 175!!!!

 

[Rich]

"The CIA laid out several scenarios and said life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better, and they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like....We stand for things."

I like it

 

[Idjit]

I note that Bush and Chenny accused the Washington Post of treason and aiding terrorism by divulging the truth.
So much for freedom of the press

I think this is deliberate on the administration's part, done to protect us. We've heard hundreds of times that the U.S. is a terrorist target because "they hate us for our freedom." So their approach seems to be to wittle away at those freedoms and rights until they are all gone, then the terrorists will have no reason to hate us anymore!

This is absolutely insane. This administration feels they can get away with everything by playing on terrorism.

Here's the thing - so far they are right. They can do anything they want and if they are questioned, all they have to do is spout "911! War on terror! Dissention is treason!" And the sheep are (apparently) right back on board. What will it take to get this man impeached? How many laws does he have to break? How many blunders costing American lives?

 

[Vassago]

Here's the thing - so far they are right. They can do anything they want and if they are questioned, all they have to do is spout "911! War on terror! Dissention is treason!" And the sheep are (apparently) right back on board. What will it take to get this man impeached? How many laws does he have to break? How many blunders costing American lives?

Tell me about it!

 

[Vassago]

Vassago,

Your right I can't say that I "know" anything about the movie, that's way I said I've heard enough about it to know I wouldn't come close to agreeing so I haven't watched it. If it would make you feel more comfortable about me commenting on it then I'll rent it and just have detailed reasons why I wouldn't agree with it. Michael Moore is a screen writer, not a documentor, with a left wing axe to grind, why would I want to listen to that? Same reason I would not go watch Al Gores new movie or read a book by Hillery. I want to be open minded but I can't see why I would need to read anything or watch anything from extreme views. Left or right.

You just said KNOW again!!! My point was, how can you know you will not agree with it if you have not seen it?

 

[ShaneMan]

You just said KNOW again!!! My point was, how can you know you will not agree with it if you have not seen it?

Keep my "KNOW" is context. I said that I have heard enough to "know" I would not agree. Not that I "know" all about the movie. I also said if you would feel better about whether I would "know" whether I agreed with it or not, then I would rent it and watch it, if I wanted to make a comment on it. I have heard clips of it played on the radio and can tell by the dialog that it would be something that I would not go along with. I'm really having a hard time understanding why this would be something that would cause a reaction out of you like this. I don't know everything about Bennie Henn, but I have heard enough from him to know I would not agree with him, so why waste my time? I view this in the same manner. I have heard Michael Moore enough to know we do not see eye to eye so why would I want to watch some thing he produced?

 

[Vassago]

I'm not really reacting at all.

I was just pointing out that you are still saying you "KNOW" because of what you have heard about it. Don't listen to what others tell you and watch it. The movie isn't just one sided. How can you understand the other point of view about our government without trying to understand it? That's the only way you can really discredit it.

Anyway, hope I didn't offend. I'm not one that really cares much and I hate political debates.

 

[ShaneMan]

I'm not really reacting at all.

I was just pointing out that you are still saying you "KNOW" because of what you have heard about it. Don't listen to what others tell you and watch it. The movie isn't just one sided. How can you understand the other point of view about our government without trying to understand it? That's the only way you can really discredit it.

Anyway, hope I didn't offend. I'm not one that really cares much and I hate political debates.

Hey Vassago,

No, you have not offended me. I do listen to both sides. My job makes me drive all over the metroplex so I listen to the radio a lot, so I try flipping back and forth between a couple of stations. Ones liberal the other is conservative. It's frustrating to me cause people look at the same situation and have all these "supposed" facts about how it happened. Who did what. Who's being truthful and who isn't, but seldom do they come close to agreeing. I'm starting to think that facts are like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Vassago]

or the beerholder.