Debate and Discussion

"They hate freedom"
TnTComic at 5:44AM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
If by “freedom” Bush means what he's turned America into in the past 7 years, then I guess I hate freedom.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
StaceyMontgomery at 6:31AM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I suppose it seems petty compared to Habeas Corpus or torture, but I admit that I have a very deep reaction to the fact that when the US President speaks in public, you cannot attend if you openly oppose him. Even an “anti-bush” t-shirt will get you carted off to a “free speech zone.” You risk being arrested.

Just think about that. A “Free speech zone.” They look like little corrals.

I live in a country that has tiny little Free Speech Zones, and they are used so that the President of the US will never, never directly face an opposing voice.

This is not the USA I grew up in. It was flawed, but not like that.

A people who do not put their foot down right there deserve what follows.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
albone at 8:15AM, Jan. 17, 2008
(online)
posts: 413
joined: 10-27-2006
Lord, and we're reaping it now. Blugh.
You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor!
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:48AM
TitanOne at 9:07AM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 199
joined: 5-12-2007
StaceyMontgomery
I suppose it seems petty compared to Habeas Corpus or torture, but I admit that I have a very deep reaction to the fact that when the US President speaks in public, you cannot attend if you openly oppose him. Even an “anti-bush” t-shirt will get you carted off to a “free speech zone.” You risk being arrested.

Just think about that. A “Free speech zone.” They look like little corrals.

I live in a country that has tiny little Free Speech Zones, and they are used so that the President of the US will never, never directly face an opposing voice.

It's appalling, but so is practically everything the government has done since 9-11, with the love and kisses of an approving news media.

The biggest problem is the linkage between the media and the people who elect and influence our leaders. There are no watchdogs anymore; the president can do whatever he wants, because he knows the Press will not challenge him.

StaceyMontgomery
This is not the USA I grew up in. It was flawed, but not like that.

A people who do not put their foot down right there deserve what follows.

Well, it's a presidential election year–let's see who wins. The electoral system is flawed but still provides ample opportunity for the people to put their foot down.

Sadly, I think the US public will elect the Status Quo again. I don't think the majority want us to have civil liberties.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:30PM
TnTComic at 9:30AM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
TitanOne
I don't think the majority want us to have civil liberties.



Oh please.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
StaceyMontgomery at 9:35AM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I am forced to agree with TitanOne on this. Most Americans are NOT outraged by the idea of “free speech zones.” They just shrug. They shrug to torture, they shrug to the loss of habeas corpus, as they have, for many years, shrugged to the total elimination of the 4th amendment (as an example).

Sure, if you ask Americans “Do you want Civil liberties” they say “sure” but when it comes to the specifics, they do not seem to care at all.

I do not understand their viewpoint at all.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
imshard at 10:16AM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
StaceyMontgomery
I am forced to agree with TitanOne on this. Most Americans are NOT outraged by the idea of “free speech zones.” They just shrug. They shrug to torture, they shrug to the loss of habeas corpus, as they have, for many years, shrugged to the total elimination of the 4th amendment (as an example).

Sure, if you ask Americans “Do you want Civil liberties” they say “sure” but when it comes to the specifics, they do not seem to care at all.

I do not understand their viewpoint at all.

America is asleep. So long as they can watch their sports and porn, then go and work at a job and flush their cash away on crap they don't need they really don't give a crap in general. So much easier to follow the twists and turns of a reality show then care what those boring losers on C-span are doing. Those are the freedoms Americans care about. The right to commit sins of Lust, Gluttony, and Sloth. Working in customer relations I know that Americans get very excited and often violent when you interfere with their entertainments. If it doesn't affect them why should they care? Habeus Whatus? I'm no criminal a man once said to me, don't be paranoid. Free Speech? pfft I can still say whatever I want. Torture? it doesn't even occur to people that its an issue. Afrfterall nobody in their neighborhood has been held by the police, if an american was ever tortured there'd be a lawsuit.

So you see it is laziness and willfull ignorance, not really a viewpoint at all.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
bobhhh at 12:35PM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
America is asleep. So long as they can watch their sports and porn, then go and work at a job and flush their cash away on crap they don't need they really don't give a crap in general. So much easier to follow the twists and turns of a reality show then care what those boring losers on C-span are doing. Those are the freedoms Americans care about. The right to commit sins of Lust, Gluttony, and Sloth. Working in customer relations I know that Americans get very excited and often violent when you interfere with their entertainments. If it doesn't affect them why should they care? Habeus Whatus? I'm no criminal a man once said to me, don't be paranoid. Free Speech? pfft I can still say whatever I want. Torture? it doesn't even occur to people that its an issue. Afrfterall nobody in their neighborhood has been held by the police, if an american was ever tortured there'd be a lawsuit.

So you see it is laziness and willfull ignorance, not really a viewpoint at all.

Finally we agree on something.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
CharleyHorse at 4:21PM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
It's something the wife and I debate sometimes, this issue of why the 1960s was the era of the activist generation among U.S. youths and yet today's youths can't even be bothered on the whole to keep abreast of important issues of the day much less get angry about things like an unnecessary war, the wrecking of the U.S. economy or the torture of prisoners of war by the U.S. government.

Unfortunately it's simple and the answer does not reflect well upon the ‘Activist Generation’ of the 1960s. Back then the youth of the nation cared very much because it was quite likely their butts that would be stuffed into a uniform and shipped off to Vietnam to fight and die for some skanky politician's war. Today? Well hell, it's an all volunteer force, isn't it .

So today's youthful generation generally cannot be bothered to get emotionally distraught over what is happening inside this nation and what this nation is doing to other nations because they do not perceive their own precious hides being at risk.

So the activist generation generally did give a damn ONLY because their behinds were at risk.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
bobhhh at 4:28PM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
CharleyHorse
It's something the wife and I debate sometimes, this issue of why the 1960s was the era of the activist generation among U.S. youths and yet today's youths can't even be bothered on the whole to keep abreast of important issues of the day much less get angry about things like an unnecessary war, the wrecking of the U.S. economy or the torture of prisoners of war by the U.S. government.

Unfortunately it's simple and the answer does not reflect well upon the ‘Activist Generation’ of the 1960s. Back then the youth of the nation cared very much because it was quite likely their butts that would be stuffed into a uniform and shipped off to Vietnam to fight and die for some skanky politician's war. Today? Well hell, it's an all volunteer force, isn't it .

So today's youthful generation generally cannot be bothered to get emotionally distraught over what is happening inside this nation and what this nation is doing to other nations because they do not perceive their own precious hides being at risk.

So the activist generation generally did give a damn ONLY because their behinds were at risk.

That's why even though i am staunchly anti war, I am just as pro draft. All volunteer forces tacitly serve as a sort of draft for poor folks. Perhaps if everyone had to offer up their children for potential cannon fodder, then we wouldn't be so quick to start wars.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
CharleyHorse at 6:18PM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
We are in agreement there Bob. Even if they are not going to be sent into combat they can and should serve in combat support roles AND therefore have THEIR private dreams and ambitions put on hold indefinitely. Yes, and in peace time as well. People are generally more thoughtful about sanctioning a ‘feel good’ war if there is a strong likelihood that themselves or one of their children might get involved, even if only on the periphery.

Alas, politicians figured that out, which is why there was never more than passing lip service by most politicos regarding the notion of citizen self-sacrifice where Afghanistan and Iraq were/are still concerned.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
imshard at 10:06PM, Jan. 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
And yet people still volunteer and going over there leaving the critics to sit on their own thumbs whining about the morality of it.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
bobhhh at 2:51AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
And yet people still volunteer and going over there leaving the critics to sit on their own thumbs whining about the morality of it.

A lot of people join the military for financial reasons, which is why Moore was able to sit outside congress and show up all the members because nearlly all of their kids were non military.

Rich kids rarely join the military, that ought to tell you something.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
TnTComic at 5:38AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
imshard
leaving the critics to sit on their own thumbs whining about the morality of it.


What would you have us do?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
CharleyHorse at 6:05AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
Someone
And yet people still volunteer and going over there leaving the critics to sit on their own thumbs whining about the morality of it.

Fewer and fewer all the time, and now the U.S. army is forced to offer captain level officers a thirty thousand bonus if they will remain in the service for another year or two of war zone duty. Also the nation had to instate the Back Door Draft – and no, I'm not going to explain the nature of that travesty of justice. Look it up if you really care.

Enlisted level of personnel ARE NOT joining up in droves in the two services that guarantee participation in war zones.

Meanwhile the average citizen just considers the war news either a bit of entertainment or an emotional drag but, really, it's not his or her war to worry about. So, yeah, out politicians DID learn the primary lesson of Vietnam, which is not to use a draft during war, even if this means that you come perilously close to gutting your military's effectiveness through various forms of ongoing personnel and morale attrition.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
RabbitMaster at 7:28AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(online)
posts: 130
joined: 5-26-2007
StaceyMontgomery
Most Americans are NOT outraged by the idea of “free speech zones.” They just shrug. They shrug to torture
You know, Stacey, if there is any area where I can probably be accused of being a little wishy-washy and a little bit on the fence, it's the area of torture. I'll tell you why.
I'm an ex-military man and I have been on the ground. I have had men's lives depending on me. I try to put myself in the situation of having a captive under my control who I know has sensitive information that, if unacquired by me, could result in the death of me and my men. How rough am I willing to get with this guy in order to save our lives? Am I willing to humilate this guy a little, maybe deprive him of some sleep, maybe even slap him around a little bit if it means I won't have to send my buddys home in a bag? If the roles were reversed, what kind of compassion could I expect from him? Or would my expected fate be to be decapitated on Al-Jazeera?
Now, I acknowledge that we don't want to be as savage as our enemy. I understand that we want to keep the moral high ground etc. But a moral compass in which it's OK to kill him in battle, but not OK to capture him and rough him up doesn't always make a lot of sense to me. Hoepfuly I'm being clear.
I also don't know if I would want the actions taken by my theoretical self in order to save our theoretical lives to become national policy. It's a slippery slope, and those that write policies from the comfort of their air-conditoned offices ususally don't have the insight and discernemnt of those facing the enemy.
So to make a long explanation short. I don't know where the line is on that. After all, it is war, and if we tie our own hands with nonsense rules of engagement, then how can we win? But if we change the nature of who we are in order to win, what have we really won?

“Perhaps you would care to try your villany on a less defenseless opponent?”–Kung Fu Rabbit
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
bobhhh at 9:28AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
RabbitMaster
StaceyMontgomery
Most Americans are NOT outraged by the idea of “free speech zones.” They just shrug. They shrug to torture
You know, Stacey, if there is any area where I can probably be accused of being a little wishy-washy and a little bit on the fence, it's the area of torture. I'll tell you why.
I'm an ex-military man and I have been on the ground. I have had men's lives depending on me. I try to put myself in the situation of having a captive under my control who I know has sensitive information that, if unacquired by me, could result in the death of me and my men. How rough am I willing to get with this guy in order to save our lives? Am I willing to humilate this guy a little, maybe deprive him of some sleep, maybe even slap him around a little bit if it means I won't have to send my buddys home in a bag? If the roles were reversed, what kind of compassion could I expect from him? Or would my expected fate be to be decapitated on Al-Jazeera?
Now, I acknowledge that we don't want to be as savage as our enemy. I understand that we want to keep the moral high ground etc. But a moral compass in which it's OK to kill him in battle, but not OK to capture him and rough him up doesn't always make a lot of sense to me. Hoepfuly I'm being clear.
I also don't know if I would want the actions taken by my theoretical self in order to save our theoretical lives to become national policy. It's a slippery slope, and those that write policies from the comfort of their air-conditoned offices ususally don't have the insight and discernemnt of those facing the enemy.
So to make a long explanation short. I don't know where the line is on that. After all, it is war, and if we tie our own hands with nonsense rules of engagement, then how can we win? But if we change the nature of who we are in order to win, what have we really won?

The ends don't justify the means. If we condone torture then what are we defending? Freedom and civility? We can't become monsters and then condemn others for acting montrously. To torture a overused phrase: If we allow ourselves to become the kind of people who subvert individual rights and torture and deny due process because of fear, then the terrorists have already won.

As a christian I'm surprised that you don't have the instinct to say “this evil behaviour stops with me, I will not return this injustice, I will turn the other cheek.”

Faced with the question of torture to save lives, WWJD?
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
RabbitMaster at 9:52AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(online)
posts: 130
joined: 5-26-2007
(exasperated sigh)

“Perhaps you would care to try your villany on a less defenseless opponent?”–Kung Fu Rabbit
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
imshard at 10:07AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
bobhhh
A lot of people join the military for financial reasons, which is why Moore was able to sit outside congress and show up all the members because nearlly all of their kids were non military.

Rich kids rarely join the military, that ought to tell you something.

You said the key word: “nearly”. I recall that one of my congressmen had to bury war dead of his own about two years ago. As a rule of thumb the: “rich never go to war” bit is untrue or we would never have these “rich” politicians from “rich” families showing up saying they are veterans. Being politically active I know there are groups of rich people who have lost their sons and daughters to this war.

TnTComic
What would you have us do?

We'll talk later.

CharleyHorse
Fewer and fewer all the time, and now the U.S. army is forced to offer captain level officers a thirty thousand bonus if they will remain in the service for another year or two of war zone duty. Also the nation had to instate the Back Door Draft – and no, I'm not going to explain the nature of that travesty of justice. Look it up if you really care.

Enlisted level of personnel ARE NOT joining up in droves in the two services that guarantee participation in war zones.

Meanwhile the average citizen just considers the war news either a bit of entertainment or an emotional drag but, really, it's not his or her war to worry about. So, yeah, out politicians DID learn the primary lesson of Vietnam, which is not to use a draft during war, even if this means that you come perilously close to gutting your military's effectiveness through various forms of ongoing personnel and morale attrition.

Maybe not in droves and floods but the numbers are somehow enough. The Back door draft is controversial enough that you can't simply refer to it as fact without an argument. An argument I won't make here though. Signing up to go back is usually optional.
I would disagree that politicians learned their lesson in Vietnam or else we wouldn't have wars at all now would we? Doubly politicians are still trying to play it off as a “police action” or afternoon project if you will. Something to be quibbled over and dismissed if it becomes inconvenient or boring. It is a war and nothing less. That means full support, funding and united effort are not just needed but required. I agree on one thing, we are gutting our military effectiveness. Especially through public and political apathy.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
DAJB at 10:08AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
RabbitMaster
So to make a long explanation short. I don't know where the line is on that. After all, it is war, and if we tie our own hands with nonsense rules of engagement, then how can we win? But if we change the nature of who we are in order to win, what have we really won?
A difficult dilemma, succinctly expressed.

The idea of “torture” by troops on the front-line of enemy prisoners who have intel which could save lives is definitely a thorny one. It's up there with armies who have to shoot prisoners who have surrendered to them because it's simply impossible to advance with them and too dangerous to leave them behind. War, huh? What is it good for?!

Less ambiguous is the torture of suspects either for the sheer Hell of humiliating them or just to see whether they have intel.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
StaceyMontgomery at 10:20AM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
The problem with the phrase “moral high ground” is that it implies an abstract value. That is, not something real, just something that makes us feel good. I do not see morality that way, actually.

For one thing, I believe in the Rule of law. Much of the arguments for torture are based on the principle that the Rule of Law does not apply to criminals. That's an argument against all of civilization. I do not accept it.

For another thing, I have read the stories of the victims of torture. US soldiers in Vietnamese and Japanese prison camps. Soviet dissidents in the Gulag. I have read the histories of the Inquisition. There is no evidence that torture works for getting information. There is evidence - 10,000 years worth of evidence - that torture is just an expedient way to get people to confess - regardless of their guilt. Torture is rather obviously a political tool, not an intelligence tool.

It seems to me that Torture always has been, and always is, about revenge. Is it about venting your anger on someone who cannot fight back. I think it is a despicable act. Torture is the dream of every coward and every scoundrel.

I would use WWII as my evidence. We used skilled interrogaters instead of torture, and we got lots of information from the prisoners we took. WWII is a war where we had great advantages of intelligence. The Nazis used “enhanced interrogation” (the same term we use now!) and did not do so well. because torture does not work. They got lots of confessions though. Did that do them any good?

We won. They lost. We didn't have the moral high ground - we had better morals. (I am not saying we were perfect, by the way, we were not - we were and are terribly flawed - but history has made its judgement here, i think)

I understand that you can always create a scenario where torture sounds reasonable. But you can also make up a scenario where bank robbery sounds like a good idea too (I just saw a movie like that) and yet, we have managed to illegalize bank robbery. There's no “slippery slope.”

And to make sure this post is “on topic” - I have to say that the growing tolerance Americans show for “enhanced interrogation” and “free speech zones” and other Orwellian speech is a clear sign that we have lost not our moral high ground - but our morals. We're not talking about forgiving an officer for getting too rough with a prisoner while under fire - we're talking about torture as an institution. We're talking about Torture centers. Torture manuals. Professional torturers. Torture as government policy. Torture “to show them we mean business.” Torture school where you learn to be a good torturer. Torture industries.

Torture as a way to promote “Freedom”

Verschärfte Vernehmung, the Nazis called it. Enhanced Interrogation. Whatever became of them?

Whatever will become of us?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Calbeck at 12:17PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
bobhhh
I'm sure the terrorists want to enjoy their version of freedom.

Perhaps you might enlighten us by explaining what “version” of freedom the terrorists believe they are fighting for. As in, any particular freedom at all?

Isn't it possible that they consider ridding their region of the world of the foreign influence of mega oil corporations and captialist foreign policy a sort of freedom?

Perhaps you could explain which mega oil corporations and/or capitalist foreign policy you're referring to. In reality, the US is currently getting less oil out of Iraq than when it was under sanctions, is paying more for it, and hasn't seized a drop. It all remains owned, and sold by, the Iraqi government…and the main customers are its historical clients Europe and Japan, not the US.

Desperate people take drastic measures.

Isn't that pretty much the abortion-clinic-sniper argument? They're desperate, too.

why a sane person could lose all hope and take one last desperate act that he feels will bring his family and country that much closer to freedom from foreign devils that rape and plunder it.

I have to assume for the moment that you haven't noticed that the majority of the insurgents are Sunnis — the ethnic group Hussein made his favored power base, and from whose ranks came the people that committed rape and plunder with his specific direction and blessing. The Sunnis controlled the economy, the army, and the society. Now they have been forced to accept people they have been raised to believe are their ‘natural inferiors’ — Shias and Kurds — as full equals. What we're seeing is the Iraqi version of the KKK gone wild, not any high-minded ideals of fairness or self-determination.

Actually Clinton was dogged about everything he did and said all the way up to impeachment for every day of his presidency by the oppostion.

I notice you dodged the question: why should I accept at face value your allegation that Bush lied? As for Clinton, it kind of hurt his case that he lied multiple times under oath about his sex life during a sexual harassment trial. He signed on to a seven-part plea agreement to avoid going to jail on three perjury counts (above and beyond the actual charge of misleading the court he got nailed with). I hold him in the same level of contempt as I do Nixon.

Really now Mr. President, isn't it possible they hate us because we keep fucking up their countries for the sake of cheap oil?…Pay attention dude, every other country in the world pays twice what we do for a gallon of gas.

Dodging again, AND inaccurate. We're not in fact paying less for OIL, which is what we're talking about, not “gasoline”, which isn't drilled out of the ground thank you very much. So again, if we went to war for cheap oil, where is it?

Not to mention the obvious: the US is an oil-producing nation with major domestic refining capacity. We provide over 45% of our own fuel consumption. Likewise, every other nation with significant oil-production capacity ALSO has lower prices.

The prices YOU'RE talking about are in nations which have no significant domestic oil reserves AND which tend to slap massive taxes on gasoline, resulting in dramatically higher prices.

Don't put words in my mouth. I am not condoning their actions or their prejudice.

You've spent quite a bit of text trying to justify their actions as reasonable — by making unreasonable assumptions about the actions of the US.

That's a “Devil Made Me Do It” defense. And it doesn't fly.

But you might remeber that we have prejudices in this country too.

Thank you for pointing up the fact that not even the Aryan Nations — perhaps the epitome of American prejudice — has a history of suicide-bombing ethnicities they don't like. If your intent was to note that the people we're fighting are worse than the Aryan Nations…

Who knows how we would act if our country was constantly under seige by foreign goverments

Which is a statement applicable to Iraq in what way, again? Would it have to do with the duly-elected representative government Iraq now has, that it did not have under Hussein? The only people laying siege to anyone in Iraq are the insurgents.

our land and resources were continually plundered by repressive regimes

Link plz?

Given the right circumstances I could envision Americans seeing themselves as heroic by strapping bombs to their chests to blow up foreign invaders and their local collaborators.

Like children in a playground…those collaborators, perhaps?

If you blow up a supermarket and everybody comes to gather up the food, does that meab they are glad you did it, or are they just hungry and will take what they can get in a bad situation.

Well, since you apparently don't know the answer, I'll give it to you:

When I was in Iraq in 1991, I met hundreds of Iraqis on the ground. Many had just been taken prisoner. Many others we met on the road to and from the outskirts of Basra.

They BEGGED us to stay. All of them. Many asked to pick up rifles and fight to overthrow Saddam. A T-55 tank battalion commander drove up with his command jeep, six radio antennae flying red flags under a white one, to not only surrender his command but offer to join us in overthrowing Saddam.

So no, those women who voted didn't “make the best of a bad situation”. They were doing what they could NOT do under Hussein: make a free choice for the future of Iraq. Maybe if we'd been allowed to finish the job in the first place, and not trusted Saddam to keep his word, a lot more of them would have lived to make that choice.

Yes but if a local american milita, traitors to our country, that supported a foreign occupying power were killing your relatives, raping your daughters, throwing your sons in jail without due process, wouldn't it be possible that someone might make a desperate act to show these charlatans that there complicity with the foreig invaders carries consequences?

Such as killing my fellow noncombatant civilians, which is what the insurgents are primarily engaged in?

Not to mention the more obvious fact that all of the acts you refer to were commonly committed by the Hussein regime, as opposed to uncommonly by US forces. For that matter, even if all the allegations that have been levied are absolutely true, the US military maintains a lower crime rate than New York City. Perhaps your argument would have some merit if any of these insurgents were doing the same thing against Hussein.

The difference, of course, is that THEN all these evil things were being done by someone the current insurgents LIKED and who kept them empowered above and beyond what their fellow Iraqis got.

You have to stop judging these people by our standards

I think having the standard of opposing “ethnic cleansing” is a good idea. I don't think I'll stop judging them by that standard, either.

Really now, is it that hard to find Bush lying?

You want to make the accusation, you get to back it up.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
Calbeck at 12:21PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
StaceyMontgomery
Just think about that. A “Free speech zone.” They look like little corrals.

Seen ‘em. I was placed in one. The day Clinton came to Tucson. Bush didn’t pioneer this particular little policy. For that matter, under Clinton the Secret Service was known to order bookstores in malls to remove book displays showing material critical of Clinton.

I'm opposed to all of it, regardless of who does it, but credit where it's due.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
bobhhh at 2:18PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
bobhhh
A lot of people join the military for financial reasons, which is why Moore was able to sit outside congress and show up all the members because nearlly all of their kids were non military.

Rich kids rarely join the military, that ought to tell you something.

You said the key word: “nearly”. I recall that one of my congressmen had to bury war dead of his own about two years ago. As a rule of thumb the: “rich never go to war” bit is untrue or we would never have these “rich” politicians from “rich” families showing up saying they are veterans. Being politically active I know there are groups of rich people who have lost their sons and daughters to this war.

TnTComic
What would you have us do?

We'll talk later.

CharleyHorse
Fewer and fewer all the time, and now the U.S. army is forced to offer captain level officers a thirty thousand bonus if they will remain in the service for another year or two of war zone duty. Also the nation had to instate the Back Door Draft – and no, I'm not going to explain the nature of that travesty of justice. Look it up if you really care.

Enlisted level of personnel ARE NOT joining up in droves in the two services that guarantee participation in war zones.

Meanwhile the average citizen just considers the war news either a bit of entertainment or an emotional drag but, really, it's not his or her war to worry about. So, yeah, out politicians DID learn the primary lesson of Vietnam, which is not to use a draft during war, even if this means that you come perilously close to gutting your military's effectiveness through various forms of ongoing personnel and morale attrition.

Maybe not in droves and floods but the numbers are somehow enough. The Back door draft is controversial enough that you can't simply refer to it as fact without an argument. An argument I won't make here though. Signing up to go back is usually optional.
I would disagree that politicians learned their lesson in Vietnam or else we wouldn't have wars at all now would we? Doubly politicians are still trying to play it off as a “police action” or afternoon project if you will. Something to be quibbled over and dismissed if it becomes inconvenient or boring. It is a war and nothing less. That means full support, funding and united effort are not just needed but required. I agree on one thing, we are gutting our military effectiveness. Especially through public and political apathy.

Are you seriously trying to tell me there is no gaping dispairty among class as to who enters military service? Mycondolences to your congressman, but he is the exception, not the rule.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
bobhhh at 2:19PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
RabbitMaster
(exasperated sigh)

I'm sorry you are frustrated, but I would seriously be interested in your reply.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
bobhhh at 2:26PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Calbeck
You want to make the accusation, you get to back it up.

I won't do this dance again because you neatly twisted all my points. I will concede that I can't convince you and vice versa, and frankly I am too tired to do this tit for tat typing thing anymore.

I will just restate once more that it's a bit too easy to villify the opposition by saying they “hate freedom”, my original point. It makes it too easy to refuse to negotiate with the enemy by labeling them evil.

If peace is your real goal, then the only way to foster and negotiate peace is to place yourself in the shoes of your enemy and try to imagine why they might have a logical and defensible reason for their actions and engage them in dialog like human beings.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Calbeck at 3:55PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
bobhhh
Calbeck
You want to make the accusation, you get to back it up.

I won't do this dance again

If you won't back up your allegations, there's no reason anyone should support your position, let alone me. It becomes a matter of faith, like telling someone you believe in God. That's nice, but I should agree with you for what reasons?

If peace is your real goal, then the only way to foster and negotiate peace is to place yourself in the shoes of your enemy and try to imagine why they might have a logical and defensible reason for their actions

We have, and they don't. I find that most people who make the arguments you are have not actually listened to these people in the first place.

And no, before you say it, I don't get my news from Fox. I prefer source material, not pre-gurgitated network pablum.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
imshard at 3:57PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
bobhhh
Are you seriously trying to tell me there is no gaping dispairty among class as to who enters military service? Mycondolences to your congressman, but he is the exception, not the rule.

It sets a precedent though, you could say something similar about the middle and third class families. Most of them, in fact the overwhelming majority of them have not lost a loved one to this war. The reason you don't see as many rich men in the military is because they represent a smaller part of the population. Find me the hard numbers and you'll see that a fairly large percentage of well-off families contribute blood to the war effort. Point is the old stereotypes about class disparity don't stick anymore.

I'll pass your condolences along next week when I see him.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
RabbitMaster at 4:30PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(online)
posts: 130
joined: 5-26-2007
bobhhh
I'm sorry you are frustrated, but I would seriously be interested in your reply.
To effectively reply, I would have to address some basic misconceptions about a biblical worldview, and I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Not because of any lack of intellect on your part, but because I feel woefully inadequate to do it justice.
Shutting up for a while….

“Perhaps you would care to try your villany on a less defenseless opponent?”–Kung Fu Rabbit
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
bobhhh at 8:08PM, Jan. 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
RabbitMaster
bobhhh
I'm sorry you are frustrated, but I would seriously be interested in your reply.
To effectively reply, I would have to address some basic misconceptions about a biblical worldview, and I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Not because of any lack of intellect on your part, but because I feel woefully inadequate to do it justice.
Shutting up for a while….

Sorry about that, was not my intention to chase you off.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved