"It's not a War *On* Terrorism. . ."

[rainonlevs]

"It's not a War On Terrorism
It's a War Of Terrorism
The ol' imperialism
You know that money is the reason
They drop bombs to kill people
Not to free them."
- War of Terrorism, Dope Poet SocietyI think that a song like this would shock most Americans. I think that many would react with disbelief and denial of the idea the US would use

Comments

[refusetobeaman]

You can make it a more possible discussion by talking about it now, even if many people think you are mad. That's how the critical mass builds and things change. In terms of decades though, the US empire has had its great growth period over the past 6 decades, with the spectacularly obviously imperialist Vietnam war ending over 30 years ago, and this stuff still isn't everyday discussion.

Talk early, talk often

[rainonlevs]

I agree that it is important to 'plant the seeds' of information early so that awareness can blossom and flourish later. That has been one of my main goals in discussing issues like this.

What I also see happening however is that in discussing and debating these issues, I have noticed that very often a softly opposing opinion will be calcified into a firm prejudice. I believe this is because considering my opinion requires casting aside too many assumptions at once and is therefore automatically rejected. I look for ways to try and reach those assumptions, to help people explore them and turn them from blind acceptance into actual judgements, but it is slow and difficult work. A single wrong word or phrase and a reasonable discussion devolves back into rants and rhetoric.

Perhaps its a matter of being more willing to let a subject go before that point is reached. Plant the information, give it a little water, and then be willing to walk away and wait for what will come next.

[rainonlevs]

Welcome to the forum, by the way!!!

[refusetobeaman]

Hey thanks!

...it is a clear and clinical judgement based on historical and current facts

[the_lance]

You can have constructive discussion when you stop assuming that everyone that disagrees with you isn't aware of "historical or current facts" or lacks your "clinical judgment."

The thing about discussion is that it goes two ways. If you ultimately believe that everything you believe is grounded in historical fact and is properly interpreted by yourself, there is no need for discussion anymore. Unless your goal is to simply inform people (which isn't really a discussion at all).

So no, you won't have a constructive discussion with anyone with your caveats exposed. You have to decide if your goal is to discuss or to inform. Because even if informing comes from discussing, that can't be your goal.