So, why not debate about debating about what we debate?

[Mythsaje]

Sometimes it's important to get to the roots of our disagreements rather than concentrating on the most visible subjects.

Or am I wrong?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1902479&mesg_id=1902479

[leeroysphitz]

1. I don't agree to that.... n/t

[IDemo]

2. undebatedly not a bad idea

In the case of the current topic DUjour, just a few thoughts.

Will debating Ahmedinejad's degree of bad-personhood lessen our disappointment when the bombs begin flying, or just make us feel better about ourselves or even, gulp, our own squinty-eyed maniac? There seem to be two splits on the discussion: 1) - Whether Mr. A is a denier or not, and how important this is to the present friction between Iran and the US, and 2) - Can the unfortunate holocaust and wipe-em-off-the-map brain farts he has issued be used as evidence that the entire nation of Iran can not be trusted, much less with nuclear weapons?

In either case, the topic assumes all the relevance of a Paris Hilton thread if it ignores the very much greater threat of military action by BushCheneyCo. In focusing on demonizing Mr. A, rightly or wrongly, it seems to me that we're keeping the dialog exactly where president Dick wants it. Instead of discussing the character flaws of Mr. A, shouldn't the focus be on whether Iran as a nation actually poses a threat worth going to war over, or if the administration is simply using the same blueprint it did for the run up to Iraq?