English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

This means, there is no middle ground....right?

...so any country not on board with us is 'against us' ...right??

2006-07-14 23:07:56 · 15 answers · asked by JJ C 2 in Politics & Government Military

15 answers

finally you are getting it

2006-07-14 23:14:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Outspoken is correct in the matter of false dilemma. False dilemma is a logical fallacy, also known as bifurcation or "black-and-white fallacy". It occurs when a speaker attempts to create a choice between two options (often polar opposites, but not always), when more options are available. In the example you gave, we know that the statement is a false dilemma by the existence of countries like France. France actively works with the UN and Interpol to limit terrorism while publicly denouncing the methods that the US employs in countering terrorism.

All politics aside, Bush's statement was invalid within the confines of formal logic.

2006-07-14 23:31:23 · answer #2 · answered by marbledog 6 · 0 0

You are right. It's called a "false dilemma." Life is not black and white, and all it takes is just ONE example to the contrary to undermine such false logic. What about neutral countries? Switzerland was neutral during WWII, but our leaders back then weren't the boneheads we have today. Nor were the people. Our Americans today seem to be rather mush-headed. No ability to think critically, no idea what the words they use even mean, being happy to parrot back what authority figures say without question. By the way, after all that rhetoric against France, now Bush is buddy buddy with France - because it serves him.

2006-07-14 23:15:38 · answer #3 · answered by Outspoken 2 · 0 0

For us or against us. Bush Lied Lied Lied Lied Lied Where are the weapons of mass destrucition he said Saddam Had stored everywhere not a bean can was found Bush said there was stockpiles of the **** Blair said there was too what are you kidding me back him He invaded a country( I dont care about how much Of an sob Saddam was) under false pretences more importantly he lied to the whole world and no one I mean no one has pulled him on it .you just cant do that stuff its not right Thousands of people have died and are still dieing over what he has done.How many Americans have to die before the american people say that he should be tried for offences against humanity.(Or do we all know that deep down inside us that the Us Getting its hands on the oil was the real reason. and that all us westeners will benefit by our stealing the wealth of the islamic nation of Iraq .) back Bush...... after all thats happened this short century LOL.

2006-07-14 23:41:04 · answer #4 · answered by Bren0 3 · 0 0

It's complicated, but yes in a sense that is correct. If anyone is not opposing terrorism - or more correctly militant islamic extremism, than they are by definition tolerating it. If a country tolerates the pressence of such people than they have a safehaven to regroup & recruit before attacking us again. To kill something completely you must first corner it & then wipe it out.

Of ocurse there are varyiing degrees of being "with" us. It is perfectly okay for a country to not support us in Iraq or even Afghanistan or elsewhere, but if inside their own country they have a no-tolerance policy against terrorist elements & their supporting sympathizer networks than they are with us, and that's what the President was asking for. I'm sure he actually spoke it outloud to further ask for cooperation on intelligence & investigative measures like the recently publicized financial tracking program.

2006-07-14 23:20:18 · answer #5 · answered by djack 5 · 0 0

This is the Origin of his policy:-

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Göring 1946 Nuremberg Trials(Nazi)

2006-07-14 23:43:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

In lay-mans terms yes, should anything major happen it is wise to know what countries are with you and which are against. The way things are headed now it is wise to know who your supporters are and who you can call on when needed.
If it weren't for the US France would be ruled by communisum yet France does not like the US, therefore I doubt that we could count on them if the US was under attack.
It is a good question especially if there is a chance for another attack similar to 9/11 or worse. Best to know who your foes are and who you can count on for support.

2006-07-15 03:14:40 · answer #7 · answered by judy_derr38565 6 · 0 0

i don't believe there's a devil and a god interior of us. because i'm a Christian, i believe that we are all born with a sinful nature and a propensity to do issues that displease God. i believe that God lives interior of us when we confess our sins and ackowledge and settle for the present of salvation Jesus gave us by technique of demise on the flow and resurrecting. Christianity teaches that there is a devil, and that i believe there is, yet i imagine the devil receives way too a lot credit for issues that are purely subsequently of the undesirable alternatives we make in existence. also, having God stay interior of you does no longer propose you're an effective individual and that you're going to under no circumstances do incorrect back. we ought to always triumph over human nature and our personal needs and placed God and others first. it is an primary conflict, and we lose a great number of circumstances, yet God facilitates us each and every step of how. bear in mind, Gentleman, I informed you i do not position self belief in good and undesirable human beings besides. no matter if Christian or no longer, i believe maximum each and every individual is doing the perfect they could, and "good" and "undesirable" is a procedures too subjective for use with the point to categorise human beings.

2016-12-06 12:34:53 · answer #8 · answered by conoley 3 · 0 0

Sure, I am totally against them right now. And I am an American. I personally feel that the only thing I have to be "For" in order to be an American is the constitution. Period. Final.

Every time a constitutional protection is violated, I feel hurt. If only I know how to stop this madness.

2006-07-15 00:36:22 · answer #9 · answered by cat_Rett_98 4 · 0 0

It all sounds good, but the truth is: When they attack YOUR country, who is in a better position to help you? The Americans or the Swiss? We need to get real here. He was talking philosophically, not get a gun and kill an arab for God.

2006-07-14 23:42:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes I agree with the President!

2006-07-15 02:43:12 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers