I don't know who they are, but you owe some people apologies. This kind of tripe is nothing but disgusting. You should be ashamed and banned for awhile again.
Just came back from Bush country? My response to halfbreed is appropriate after he repeatedly insinuated there're posters on this board rooting for terrorist victory, without any shred of substance. The real shame is those war supporters wishing for more brain-washed American youths dying for a lie.
How many feet do you have to put in your mouth? Are you, by chance, an octopus? I am a Bush apologist here because there are so many perpetual Bush antagonists here. I might be different in real life, so let up on the name-calling. Are you really saying that "those war supporters (are) wishing for more brain-washed American youths dying for a lie." That is just plainly objectionable.
I've never accused anyone of being pro-terror. I probably have accused some of being anti-American so if I've offended anyone I should apologize and I do. I have NEVER called anyone a terrorist on this board (I know others have) and I think that's morally reprehensible as well. However, my beliefs don't come out of thin air. Just as some of you may think that those of us who support the war don't care about innocent civilians, "the truth," honesty, and the like, the way some on this board have portrayed the troops leads me to believe that they aren't phased by troop failure. In the GARM, there are posters who have an axe to grind with TMac. They only highlight the negative aspects of his game and take every chance to post when he has a slow game. When good news is posted they bring up the last time TMac had a subpar game. Do I think these people support TMac? Absolutely not. This is simliar to how I view the way certain posters portray our troops and our country. Posting ONLY the negative while trying to spin the positive into a negative. Have I overreacted before? Yes. Have I said things I regret? Yes. Am I 100% wrong? I don't think so.
You can "root for the other side" without any bloodshed, i.e. immediate and complete withdrawal. Some think that a defeat for America. Some see that as just a sensible or moral course. The call for "atrocities" is just plain de-humanizing and is applied to valiant members of the 101st Keyboarders... of which we are all recruits. Love that inside joke...
Damn giddy! I'm getting dizzy from the spin. Or maybe it's the merlot BTW not to derail the thread but Jr said today that Osama is dangerous. So which is it? "I'm not concerned" or "When he says he's going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it"? Bush: Bin Laden Should Be Taken Seriously! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125...8rB4FkB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Objectionable, you think? How does this sound to you: I believe 99% of Clutch fans are decent, regardless of their political idiologies and stances on war. But I have a gut feeling, there are always 1% that are blood thirst and have no concerns for lives of innocent human beings. They are worse than Hitler. Yes, some of them are frequent posters on D&D. I won't name names though. If you think the above insinuation is not incendiary crap, you are one hell of neutral observer.
I agree with halfbreed to the effect that we are all guilty on a certain level. And I of course am right. “In each of us, there is a certain amount of peace and certain amount of non-peace, a certain amount of violence and a certain amount of nonviolence. We must work on ourselves. If we work for peace out of anger, we will not succeed. Peace is not an end; it can never come about through non-peaceful means. To create a peaceful society, we have to transform the anger and defuse the bombs that are in us . . . Most important is to be peace so that when a situation presents itself, we will not create more suffering.” ~(Thich Nhat Hanh Love in Action: Writing on Nonviolent Social Change, 1993) Every action that anyone commits – even the most misguided and evil action – is an attempt to escape suffering. May all beings be well, may all beings be happy, may all beings be free from suffering. http://www.wildmind.org/karuna-txt.html
Hayes; I have to say this is an excellent post and a great response. I haven't had the time to read through the rest of this thread yet to see other responses so pardon me again if someone else has brough this up. I think this is a very good point and goes to the issue if someone so strongly supports an issue how much should they do about it. Its true that to an extent we're all hypocrites to a certain extent but I think context is important if we're going to consider hypocrisy. In this issue one side is advocating putting people into harms way to prosecute the war while another is advocating taking people out of harms way. If you're advocating putting people into harms way should you be willing to go to? If you're advocating taking people out of harms way then is it hypocrisy that you don't put yourself into harm? So yes, you're right that vehemently anti-war people should get more active before accusing others of hypocrisy but at the same time though if your cause involves putting people into harm's way wouldn't that be more hypocritical that you're not willing to put yourself in harm's way? I mean its one thing to say the troops should come home and its another to say the troops should stay. I will add that I myself don't think less of most war supporters for not volunteering but I wouldn't mind seeing more of our political leaders having served in war or having family that have. I do have a problem with a leadership that has no personal risk or experience in regard to war committing troops to war because without that consideration there is the temptation to use the troops recklessly. The troops then become almost an abstract policy tool rather than the real human beings that they are.
Here's the problem; I wrote what I suspected is the case - but I don't know what I think of the war in Iraq, or , more precisely, I haven't come to a definitive conclusion on the war. I stated that in my post. I'm not sure what the best course of action is. I'm not sure this war is justified at all. And that's what I'm saying; If you are absolutely positive that the war in Iraq is making the world a better place, is making America safer, is spreading freedom to people who would not have it (whatever the hell that means), then why aren't you there? With all the spin, the garbage-spewing, the ulterior motives and cynical politicking - I have no idea what the war in Iraq is about. And because I don't believe anyone else can be justifiably positive about the motives and potential results, then I don't think it should have happened. But I don't know. And neither do you. So, instead of thrumming up your war bugles and faux-objectively stating one case or another - why not just admit that you don't know ****? Because you don't, and neither do I, and neither does anyone on this board.
The fact of the matter: Everyone on this board, everyone at Wal-Mart, everyone at the Rockets game, everyone standing in line at the DMV, and so forth is completely removed from the decision making process that started this war. We can support it or protest it after the fact, but that doesn't change the crucial detail that we, you and me and everyone we know, have nothing to do with this war other than being bystanders who may sometimes cheer or boo. It's a remote and unrelated event to most of our day to day lives - sure, we may know someone there, we may not. But does that change our alienation from the political processes that brought it about? No American has ever been so removed from Washington D.C. as Americans are today. These debates are ultimately pointless. We can state our position all we want, but stating a position amounts to nothing if one doesn't have force or numbers to back it up. We're all suckers for believing that any of this matters. We're suckers for thinking that we can say "we support our troops" and that somehow means something. It means nothing. Go dodge bullets - if you want to support our troops, then join our troops. I, for one, have no idea whether any of this is justified, or if justification is even necessary anymore for the machinations of power to be carried to their conclusions.
Yeah I totally agree. Way back before mass media and mass communication Americans were WAY closer than we are now!
It's the Merlot. What spin? It's not uncommon for some people to refer to the insurgents we fight in Iraq as "Freedom Fighters." I'm just glad that George Washington was not as reckless with his army as these guys or a significant percentage of us would not have descended from that revolutionary population. If one is wont to call them "Freedom Fighters," one must have sympathy for their position-- which indicates an opinion that this war in Iraq is unjust or at least mistaken. Calling for a pullout essentially sides with them on moral grounds. I don't remember the exact date of the earlier Bush remark on bin Laden but I'm pretty sure it was early in this conflict. A lot has been learned since then about how this whole extensive network operates. The power of hindsight... to kill! Dumb analogy: two years ago not too many people feared the Steelers with Tommy Maddox at QB. Then Big Ben took over the reins and nobody knew how effective he was to become. Nobody knew exactly what capabilities bin Laden would have when he went underground. You can mock Bush if you want (and I know you will) but likely he is just parroting the intel they had on the guy.
Yeah, mass communication has really clarified events. The problem with mass communication is that it requires the masses to keep it profitable. And you missed the point - other than a sham vote every couple of years, you have no chance of making your viewpoint relevant to anyone with power - unless you too have power, particularly if you have a significant bundle of cash to deliver to your favorite suit. No politician is trying to appeal to you, they're trying to appeal to a demographic that you happen to fit into. I need to stop pretending that this abstract exercise in debate skills is anything other than a mild diversion, like watching some TV or playing a videogame. Apparently, you've had that figured out all along. Uh....brah.
I already answered this. Supporting something as the right decision does not translate into directly participating in it (see Bosnia, global warming, inner city education). Further, since we support many different actions within our own agenda's, your simplistic 'test' would only enable us to have a singular agenda (I cannot, for example, go to Iraq and teach inner city education at the same time). So if you aren't sure of motives and results you shouldn't take/support an action? I'm afraid that would leave you gridlocked with no action ever possible. Don't project your confusion onto me. I know that I had a plethora of reasons for supporting the intervention in Iraq. Of those only the WMD plank has proven incorrect, while other results have emerged that only reenforces my decision. So what I DO know is that I am still satisfied both in my decision to support the intervention and to defend said intervention on this board. Sorry if you're incapable of committing one way or the other, but don't presume to 'objectively' rule out someone else's opinion. I find it laughable that you attempt to delegitimize one side of the debate with pejorative labels when you can't even make up your own mind. Thanks, SC. Yes, you should 'be willing to go.' If I was called by the country then I would, indeed, go. Certainly there is room to castigate those officials who deferred through political connections. But ours is an all volunteer force because that is the most effective way to professionalize the military. The draft is in place to supplement that model in case of need, and again I believe we should all serve if called. But it is not necessary for a citizen to serve, only to serve if called. We each fill our role in society and that does not necessarily translate into going to the front lines. Just as with my Bosnian example - I feel it was totally justified and the 'right' decision for the US to intervene to stop the genocide there. Does that mean to avoid hypocrisy I should have joined and went to Bosnia? I don't know why and I think that is very shallow analysis. I think the response I made to Thadeus re: driving a car/global warming shows the failure of this totality. I can advocate a need for more inner city teachers. Does that mean I am a hypocrite if I don't quit my job and become an inner city teacher? What if I become an advocate of higher taxes and that the tax money should be spent on inner city teachers? I am willing to do so if drafted, which is my role in the model for the military. If you flip the equation then if you say we should pull the troops out of Iraq should you go to Iraq to help stabilize the country? Or should you take a more radical step to protest troops in Iraq? Thadeus's equation says I should quit my job and leave my family and go to Iraq. Shouldn't the 'other side' take at least as radical steps - quit your job, leave your family and sit in on the capitol steps, for example? I reject that view because our force structure is not set up this way. We have an all volunteer force, that uh...volunteered to carry out our foreign policy objectives. They are doing so. To claim that everyone who supports the all volunteer concept should volunteer is nonsensical at best. Agree. With the all volunteer force this isn't as real a problem, but we do see in the current government those who used political connections to avoid their duty as a citizen to serve under a draft. I don't have any sympathy for those in both parties who did so.
