Iraq – Part 3

Here's the final chapter of the Iraq debate. Be sure to read parts 1 and 2 first: 

Kelsey Ramirez- Raub: 
I think Scott did address the points quite well. However...don't reference Wikipedia. The information there is provided by the 'public' and it is not always researched or verified for authenticity.
 
Matt Beimford: 
It's true, he does watch LOST only, there is another debate there that need not be started. Oh yea, he also watched Eraser. 
 
Scott Hounsell: 
Adrian...

Again with the semantics...To say that you don't believe the media "does a good job of informing" would be to say that you dont believe that the job is adequate...Just saying man...

"Are you saying that we shouldn't be informed?" ... See More

No...quite the opposite. I just feel that most Americans rely on opinionated and biased sources for their information and I feel that does a disservice to this country.

"that we can't be informed for some reason?"

I feel that we can all be informed. I just again think that most people wont look up material that would prove their point or side wrong or incorrect.

"Do you agree that an informed public is central to any kind of democracy or do we have different definitions of democracy?"

Yes. I believe that an informed people is important. The fact that the guy who watches O'Reilly or Matthews, that his vote carries the same weight in the voting booth that mine does somehow seems unfair. I believe there should be a basic test of both basic information (to verify you can at least understand the English Language) and additionally a current events test. You fail, your vote doesnt count.

"Or is it that you simply don't think democracy is the best system?"

Democracy isnt the best system. Thus why the founding fathers set up a republic.

"Why is it a partisan issue?" (referring to whether or not going into Iraq was justified).

The democrats needed something to be against Bush for and since he was winning on EVERY other category, they decided to go with the Iraq war. Just politics my friend.... 

Scott Hounsell: 
And thank you Kelsey. I appreciate it. Yes, I do not like Wikipedia either, but I was in a hurry, and felt that the information was reliable enough. Generally when it comes to terms like that, it is pretty reliable. But yes, you are right.

I have not gotten into Lost. 24 is my show. 

Adrian Haurat: 
So that my words aren't being twisted let me make it very clear. I said:

" I don't pretend to believe the press does a good job of informing everyone of everything" = The press isn't perfect.

and I said... See More

"The press isn't perfect, but an intelligent person can still be informed if they are willing to hear what both sides have to say and use judgment in choosing sources." = People can (and should) be adequately informed. Based on your last post I think we're in agreement here.

You said:
"I just feel that most Americans rely on opinionated and biased sources for their information and I feel that does a disservice to this country."

and

"I feel that we can all be informed. I just again think that most people wont look up material that would prove their point or side wrong or incorrect."

For the most part I agree with you. The fact that most people get their news from tv stations whose primary interest is ratings is a tragedy, but it is hypocritical to make that statement while citing Fox news, military.com, and CNN to "prove" your points. I read your sources and have read other sources and I've come to the conclusion that the weapons that were found did not warrant invasion. Even if you disagree with me, you can't accuse me of just listening to one side.

The issue of democracy is a side issue, but I brought it up because your initial post stated

"This crap about being an "informed" people is just ridiculous. If you consider the media here in the U.S. as a good source to "inform" the people then you have something else coming."

I think I misunderstood you and thought you were saying that people don't need to be informed, or can't be because the media is so bad. I see now that you were really saying people are not informed (even if they think they are) because they trust what you perceive as a liberal-biased media. Terminology aside, ("Democracy" vs. "Democratic Republic") the point is that in either system an informed public is essential. We agree on this so the point it is no longer worth debating.

Your idea about Democrats wanting something to blame Bush for is interesting, but it's really irrelevant. A principled conservative should be able to be against the invasion for the reasons I've already mentioned. Certainly, if a Democratic presidential administration did the same thing as the Bush Administration, conservative politicians would have complained about the financial implications and accused them of incompetence. You're right to say "that's just politics." Both sides will always be loyal to their own.

But an average person, not a professional politician, should be able to see through that. Which is why I waste my time arguing with loyal conservatives; I believe that you can be conservative and still be against the invasion.

I feel it's necessary to once again, clearly and concisely state the bottom line which is really where we disagree. All of the other crap is just details and side issues:

1. I acknowledge some weapons were found, but those weapons were not a threat to the US and did not warrant our invasion.

2. I acknowledge Saddam was a ruthless dictator, but we did not have to invade to do something about it. Also, if that were really the reason we were invading, people should have been told the situation and been able to make a decision. Instead, the American people were convinced we had to go in because there were weapons that posed a threat to us (not just the region). The "Saddam was a bad guy" argument for our invasion came after the fact when the WMDs turned out to be insignificant.