How do I counter this argument?

Imma hit you with some truth.

You cannot change anyone else's mind about something that they already have a strong opinion about.

I know you read that and your first inclination is to think, no that's not true, so I will type it again for effect.

You cannot change anyone else's mind about something that they already have a strong opinion about.

They are the only one that can change their mind. The only thing you can do is to offer them a perspective or fact that they were unaware of or had not previously considered.

If in the process of this the conversation become contentious or heated, they are going to shut down mentally and not listen. Fighting with them just drives them further into their shell.

What I would do if I were you, and were serious about this, is to go back and get Dr. Paul's reading list, the one he assigned to Guiliani in '08. Another thing you can do is to pull one of the multiple video feeds where that former CIA agent guy with the santa beard is stating that Ron Paul's position is correct, they are not killing us because we're so awesome and WINNING at life, but because we are over there and killing them.

The challenge is to present the information in small bites and be patient with the individual. You're fighting against a long line of government and media driven indoctrination and a person's mind just isn't flexible enough to shrug that all off in one sitting. If they can shrug this off and jump start their own critical thinking skills they will start seeing everything in a new light.
 
I've got a buddy like that, if they won't educate themselves (even when you lay it on a platter for them) then there isn't a whole lot you can do. There are a million historical examples and reasons that you can point out to him about US involvement in WW1 causing WW2, but it won't matter. His mind is closed right now.
 
Tell him that if we nuke Iran, we'll inevitably kill Jews as well as Christians since they both reside in that country. (He can check the CIA world factbook online).

Then ask him if he has anything against Christians and Jews.

It is a dirty debate tactic but it is a counter.
 
acptulsa said:
Step one: WWII was not caused by isolationism. WWII was caused by the Treaty of Versailles. Ask him if Winston Churchill was wrong when he called the Treaty of Versailles a 'twenty year truce'.

Step two: Ask him how many times over the last two millenia the Islamic people invaded us--or, for that matter, how many times they even raised a hand to us when we weren't in their faces conducting Crusades.
Click to expand...

The insistance of western Europe that the german Empire become a Repuplic was the first step.
That Germany be made to pay war reparations " German Guilt" was the second.
Those to requirements angered the german people, giving rise to Hitler.
 
Sunni and Shiite have been killing each other since Mohammad died. They have their own power struggle going on for 1500+ years.
It still isn't settled.

It's like two brothers fighting, and a stranger tries to intervene. Low be the stranger.
 
goliberty78 said:
My father is of the opinion that Iran and other middle-east countries hate us not because of intervention, but because they are radical islamists that want control of the world. He thinks since they will blow themselves up with suicide bombs, and "Ahmadinejad is a crazy freak that thinks he is the 12th Imam", that they would certainly try to nuke us knowing they would get obliterated so they could be martyred. He thinks if we stop pursuing the war on terror in the middle east, and we don't impose regime change in Iran, then they will only get stronger and then attack us on our own soil. He says "I don't want to wait for them to attack us again, I want us to go kick their ass". He says a non-interventionist FP is what allowed WWII to happen and thinks WWIII will happen if we adopt Paul's FP. I tried sending him a link explaining our involvement in the coup in Iran (which he was totally oblivious too), he said he "might" read it. Since he never responded I doubt he ever read it or took it serious. Keep in mind he gets all his news from Fox, Rush, and Hannity. We've had some pretty heated debates lately about this, the last one ending with him telling me "I've gone off the deep end." Its getting pretty frustrating at this point :mad:
Click to expand...

Show him this article:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2012/01/20/iranian-crisis-escalates/
 
sanssq said:
Question the efficacy of the policies and the costs.

>>>>>>>US foreign policy has led to Islamic Republics and Sharia law in both Tunisia and Libya, The secular governments have been overthrown and the region destabilized. In Egypt, US actions have aided the Muslim brotherhoods rise to prominence and potentially created a adversary on a formally stable border for Israel.

In Iraq, the Shia' are gaining control led by Sayyid Muqtadā al-Ṣadr. al-Sadr has demanded more power in the Iraqi government. They are allies of the more militant factions of the Iranian Islamic republic.Al-Sadr's Madhi army will be reconstituted if he doesn't get it. the power he wants. Civil war looms in the Iraq. Several hundred thousand Iraqi's have died already. Almost 4,500 American soldiers have perished. The price tab including future costs of caring for the near 40,000 combat injured is estimated to be in the $2 Trillion range.

Question the real threat:

>>>>>>> If all the 3.5% U235 reactor grade material that Iran has available would not produce enough 80-95% weapons grade material to make a single bomb. Note also that Iran spends about $7.8 Billion a year for its military. About 1% of what USA does. Add in the fact that internal sources within Iran indicate that Ahmadinejad is only able to stay in power by using the USA as an "external threat" He claims the opposition is non patriotic and or working for US and Western Interests otherwise he would be toast. Shall we will not live in fear of a country that has the technology of the USA in 1944? Are we to be threatened by a few thousand fanatics huddled around fires and living in caves. America is a great nation. It is the real home of the brave.

Question the rational of they hate us for no valid reason:

>>>>>>Is it so difficult to believe that the US has indeed made enemies and empowered the fanatics by it's actions? That al Queda got financing and recruitment because of US actions in the region? An estimated 500,000 Iraq children (UNCIEF cited 200 per day) that died due to US sanctions on that country after the first Gulf war.? OBL was a devout Sunni? Did you know that those deaths were mostly in the Sunni population in Iraq? Cited as a major reason for 9/11? And Paul Wolfowitz has now admitted that the U.S. military presence on Saudi soil was a grievance that animated Osama bin Laden. Wolfowitz is calling for a withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia. Supporting despots is also not making the USA popular either. Here is a link to an outstanding paper by Doug Bandow (full paper has a link from this site): http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1287

Question the morality: The definition of a Christian "Just War":

>>>>>>>
Is there justification "jus ad bellum" and "jus in bello"? These wars do not meet those criteria:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3, there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil

In the case of Afghanistan, the criteria were largely met due to the Taliban government refusing to give up the al Qaeda criminal Osama bin Laden.
That war lost it's justification over time.

In the case of Iraq, the criteria was not met to give any justification to the 2003 invasion. In fact, it fails on every single criteria of a just war. As do the other actions of the US government occurring in other nations.

In the case of Afghanistan (which Paul supported a limited one to overthrow the Taliban), the criteria were largely met due to the Taliban government refusing to give up the al Qaeda criminal Osama bin Laden. That war lost it's justification over time.

In the case of Iraq, the criteria was not met to give any justification to the 2003 invasion. In fact, it fails on every single criteria of a just war. As do the other actions of the US government occurring in other nations.

In the case of Libya there was no justification and the actions by Obama were unconstitutional and in violation of the War Powers Act. Support of these actions weakens the US Constitution.


If your dad cannot see the truth in the above, then he is not being rational. Nothing but a greater emotional impact is likely to change his mind...... Except for time.
Click to expand...

This is great, can I have it, cause Im stealing it, and will give you credit :-)
 
goliberty78 said:
He thinks we should impose regime change on Pakistan too, he's argued that they may be even more of a threat to us than Iran. He wants us to maintain military superiority over the whole world and believes all those bases are necessary to maintain it. He thinks we are the only country with the military capability to fight these wars so its our "duty". He refuses to even consider the idea that we as a country have done anything bad resulting in "blowback". He actually said "I don't give a fuck why they (radical islamists) claim to hate us, who cares what they say, they attacked us and anyone supporting them (including Iran or any other country that sponsors them)should be wiped out!"

As for the other candidates and their policies/records, I honestly don't think he even knows what they are. I've sent him multiple sources showing how Gingrich (his candidate) is not a true small government conservative, I don't think he even read them, if he did he never replied. He just claims "Gingrich got the Republicans back in control of Congress in the '90s and can do it again!" lol I know he doesn't like Romney. But, his stance is ANYONE will be better than Obama, so whoever the Republican nominee is that is who he will vote for. He doesn't get it that Romney/Gingrich won't fix anything. He compares Obama to Bush and insists we can't have another 4 yrs of Obama and would be happy with another "Bush" instead. Its maddening really, like trying to penetrate a brick wall with a balloon lol
Click to expand...

It sounds like he is really stupid. I doubt you'll make much progress with him.
 
eR3alist said:
Imma hit you with some truth.

You cannot change anyone else's mind about something that they already have a strong opinion about.

I know you read that and your first inclination is to think, no that's not true, so I will type it again for effect.

You cannot change anyone else's mind about something that they already have a strong opinion about.

They are the only one that can change their mind. The only thing you can do is to offer them a perspective or fact that they were unaware of or had not previously considered.

If in the process of this the conversation become contentious or heated, they are going to shut down mentally and not listen. Fighting with them just drives them further into their shell.

What I would do if I were you, and were serious about this, is to go back and get Dr. Paul's reading list, the one he assigned to Guiliani in '08. Another thing you can do is to pull one of the multiple video feeds where that former CIA agent guy with the santa beard is stating that Ron Paul's position is correct, they are not killing us because we're so awesome and WINNING at life, but because we are over there and killing them.

The challenge is to present the information in small bites and be patient with the individual. You're fighting against a long line of government and media driven indoctrination and a person's mind just isn't flexible enough to shrug that all off in one sitting. If they can shrug this off and jump start their own critical thinking skills they will start seeing everything in a new light.
Click to expand...

excellent and so true.
 
Agree with him that AquaVelva man is a freak but point out that the U.S. threatening him and the Imams only makes them stronger in Iran because they are able to rally nationalism and deflect blame on the U.S. and the west for the sanctions we have put on Iran. Also point out that our undying support for Israel only hurts her. Tell him you would rather have the U.S. stop dictating to Israel how she may best defend herself. Tell him if he wants Iran to be bombed we should just let Israel off the leash. Remind him of the six day war. Israel can defend herself and the fact that we give them money, and her enemies money allows us to dictate how Israel handles it's affairs.

Tell him if Iran knew that the U.S. was taking a non intervention approach the chances of Iran ever threatening Israel again would be the end of Iran. Iran would think twice on running it's mouth knowing that Israel would destroy them. Point out to your father that Ron Paul was only congressman that voted against a condemnation of Israel when they unilaterally bombed the Iraqi nuclear program. Ron Paul's position on that was that only Israel can decide what is best to defend herself.
 
Also send him some videos and pictures of Iran to show him that they are a modern country with 70 million people. The youth in Iran is pro west and hate their theocracy. Putting sanctions and dropping bombs on them only serves to erode that support.
 
explain that the middles east is a collection of 3rd world countries they can not and will not ever take over the world. they dont have the money, education, or resources to run there countries in peace. they dont refine there own oil, they cant get enough water for all there people but there going take over the world........ the richest country in the world cant even lightly police the world. tell him lastly that the last attack on the country we were completely unaware of them and we werent looking for an attack now we are which greatly diminishes the chance of it happening again. especially on that scale.
 
Show him that the news is fake. If he still clings to his "news" after watching these videos then I'd assume he's a lost cause.



 
Debating with your dad firstly requires being respectful. Parents are used to telling their kids how the world works, not vice versa. Make your point, but don't yell at him and don't be snide.

Secondly, it requires having the knowledge and confidence that your opinion is correct. He's going to have a hard time believing that you know more than he does when he still remembers coming home from work to you being in diapers. So, you have to show that you have done your research. Keep to the topic at hand. When you disagree, follow-up with the reasons why and do so immediately. When he says non-interventionism led to WWII, point out that entangling alliances led to WWI, which led to Germany being unfairly punished, which led to a stagnating economy and Hitler using anger from that to come to power. When he says Iran wants to take over the world, point out the NIE of 2007 and that Israel has nukes and a military easily able to decimate Iran. Also point to Iran's last war, which we helped Saddam wage.

Third, you have to keep him to the same standards you are keeping yourself. When he makes statements about Iran wanting to take over the world, ask him why. Ask him how that is feasible when they have a small military and no nukes. Ask him where he got that info. Ask him how average Iranians must feel when they are being threatened with nukes. When he says non-interventionism led to WWII, ask what Middle Eastern country is like 1930's Germany. I would challenge him on every point he makes that I don't agree with (civilly of course). Ask him for proof of his statements and don't let him use generic statements like "they want to take over the world". When he provides his proof, that's when you counter his arguments. Try forcing him to prove his point, and if he can't, he will appreciate when you can prove yours.

Fourth, it helps to know your opponent, for lack of a better term. If he is conservative economically, point out that bases across the world subsidize the local economies of other countries. A military base in Berlin stimulates that economy, as the wages of soldiers (paid by our tax dollars) gets spent in local German bars and stores. I live near Ft Reilly, and can tell you that the economy is always booming there because of KSU and the military base.

It's not easy and requires research and some debating skills, and I'm in no way telling you what to do, just trying to give advice based on my experience. I've had heated discussions with my girlfriend's dad. I know that the facts are on my side, but have to keep from being sarcastic, and admittedly I fail at this sometimes. He made a comment about the Iranian hostage crisis being an "act of war", and I responded by saying, "I wonder what our overthrowing their democratically-elected leader 25 years before that was then". I felt great because I made a point that he couldn't refute, but he probably just got angry.

If he still shuts our your arguments, I'd just give it up. It's much more worth it to talk with someone who will listen. At least you hopefully convinced him that you are knowledgeable, passionate, and consistent.
 
On the problem of terrorism, you could point out that Rep. Paul has never claimed that ALL terrorists are motivated by our military interventions in the Middle East. There will always be a core of radical jihadis who wish to destroy the West.

However, it is also indisputable that this radical core – people like bin Laden – have been able to very successfully use our interventions in the Middle East as a propaganda and recruiting tool to convince young idiots to strap on suicide vests. This is an objective fact: the 9/11 Commission Report and Prof. Robert Pape's longitudinal study of suicide terror attacks both conclude as much.

So Ron Paul suggests that we could dramatically reduce the resources and manpower available to radical jihadists by removing our troops from the Middle East, and could more effectively take out that core group with targeted killings via Constitutional letters of reprisal. This strategy would be both more effective than our current strategy of “nation-building”, and, importantly, would be much lower cost. This would make it sustainable in the long run. We need to remember that the fight against jihadism is a generational conflict, it will probably go on forever, or at least for many decades. I am a believer in the “Long War”, and we must fight it in a sustainable fashion. Only Ron Paul is advocating for such.

Those who think the “War on Terror” can be fought like a conventional war and ended with a victory parade will see this nation long since bankrupted before we are secure.
 
goliberty78 said:
My father is of the opinion that Iran and other middle-east countries hate us not because of intervention, but because they are radical islamists that want control of the world. He thinks since they will blow themselves up with suicide bombs, and "Ahmadinejad is a crazy freak that thinks he is the 12th Imam", that they would certainly try to nuke us knowing they would get obliterated so they could be martyred. He thinks if we stop pursuing the war on terror in the middle east, and we don't impose regime change in Iran, then they will only get stronger and then attack us on our own soil. He says "I don't want to wait for them to attack us again, I want us to go kick their ass". He says a non-interventionist FP is what allowed WWII to happen and thinks WWIII will happen if we adopt Paul's FP. I tried sending him a link explaining our involvement in the coup in Iran (which he was totally oblivious too), he said he "might" read it. Since he never responded I doubt he ever read it or took it serious. Keep in mind he gets all his news from Fox, Rush, and Hannity. We've had some pretty heated debates lately about this, the last one ending with him telling me "I've gone off the deep end." Its getting pretty frustrating at this point :mad:
Click to expand...
Ask him if what he thinks of them and how he thinks they should be dealt with is not hatred. Plank in his own eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
US War With Iran, Decision Has Been Made. Without US Congress Vote.
Replies
3
Views
1K
unknown
unknown
PAF
US Policy: Let Israel Escalate Against Iran, Then Tell Iran Not To Escalate Back
Replies
2
Views
587
69360
6
W
Mike Pence Wants War With Iran. The U.S. needs to restore deterrence in the Middle East
Replies
3
Views
867
Invisible Man
I
Swordsmyth
Pentagon's New Mideast Policy Chief Wants To Scale Down US Presence In Region
Replies
0
Views
165
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
PAF
President Trump: Stop Bombing Yemen and Exit the Middle East!
Replies
1
Views
316
TheTexan
TheTexan
Back
Top