It doesn’t get more small town than this.
Ariel was marching in a Memorial Day parade today, thumping along on a honkin’ big drum as part of her school marching band. Great day to be displaying flags, because there was a steady wind and the flags were flapping beautifully in it.
To this day, I still think people should NOT (NOT, DAMMIT, NOT, FREAKIN’ ÐÃMN TYPO NOT) burn flags in protest. I believe they have the right to, and I think an amendment to oppose it is ridiculous. But the problem is that nobody burns flags because they have a problem with the flag. They do it as an attention getting device because they have some other issue. But the flag is so majestic, such a lovely symbol, that violating it is going to alienate the people you’re trying to convince of the rightness of your cause, whatever that may be. So I think it’s a pretty dumb thing to do.
When we’re in the midst of fighting a war, it gives Memorial Day that much more resonance. Let’s hope as many people come home safely as possible.
PAD
• 
“It’s all so much more complicated than the ‘mysticism’ label you cheerfully and erroneously apply to the situation.”
I’d better switch to decaf or something ’cause I seem to be unintentionally pìššìņg people off.
I didn’t say it was stupid. I said it was mysticism. I’m a follower of science–hëll, I even worked as a scientist. this sort of thing has no more reality to me than horoscopes but I’m not saying that anyone who follows horoscopes is an idiot or anything (although, to me, there are few bigger wastes of time. Unless there is some scientific mechanism I’m not seeing I don’t see why the term “mysticism” is so erroneous.
The problem with seeing your ancestors behavior being tied irrevocably to your own actions is that (besides, to me, having no logical basis in reality) it leads to inevitable unfairness. A good kid from a criminal family is no more deserving of special condemnation than a bad kid from a good family is deserving praise.
I do understand that most of the world does not follow western culture and ideas. However reality, to paraphrase Phillip K Ðìçk, is still there whether you believe in it or not. Germ theory is probably a distant second to the belief that disease is caused by curses and the trespasses of our ancestors but all available evidence indicates that such a view, while popular, is untrue.
Sorry if this comes off as arrogant or whatever. I don’t think that non-western cultures have nothing to offer but I also think that there is a reason why it is the West that has assumed so dominant a place in the world and it sure ain’t the genetic superiority of the people in it.
I have agreed with almost everything PAD has said in a political thread. So much for the false dichotomy of liberal/conservative. The only thing I haven’t agreed with is his discussion of the merits of some inflammatory artwork. I haven’t seen the pieces so I haven’t an opinion (a little embarrassing, because I think I was living in NY at the time and I was too lazy to shlep over to see them).
I do disagree with the comparison (by Menshevik) between Germany’s Holocaust denial laws and the common-law countries’ libel laws. Libel law is designed to protect individual people from having their reputations besmirched by false claims. It doesn’t apply to groups. The Klan probably denigrates racial minorities on a regular basis, but they’re not civilly liable for libel.
There are a couple of reasons why our system is better than the Continental model. The primary one is that German laws about holocaust denial are political in nature. They are designed to eliminate the ability to advance certain viewpoints. A similar law in France led to a successful lawsuit requiring Yahoo! Auctions to stop sales of Nazi and Klan relics. That would certainly not be permissible here. That’s a Good Thing. As Ben Hunt put it earlier, if we’re not all free, nobody’s free.
From that perspective, the Continental laws are hugely problematic. A website (http://www.selfregulation.info/iapcoda/rxio-background-020923.htm) operated by two Oxford professors has some helpful links. As I read the “Framework Proposal,” the EU has quite literally proposed thought crime legistlation to its member States.
To paraphrase the most infuriating unfunny (lately) Dennis Miller:
“Countries with freedom of Speech, get folks like David Duke. Those who don’t get Hitler”
Very paraphrased, but the sentiment is the same.
My 2 cents.
Travis
Actually Travis, he said that back in the old days, when he was still funny. Early-to-mid HBO Show wun time frame if memory serves. In in one of his “The Rants” books too…
I’ve never liked flag-burning, but I do think people should have the right to do it.
However, if someone is stupid enough to do it, then once the vets are done pummeling them, they should be charged with inciting a riot. 🙂
Not really sure if any of our German friends actually watch Enterprise, or if they even get it in that country, but the conversation of Nazi symblos being banned brings to mind the last episode of Enterprise for the season (last seen, most remembered). SPOILERS!!! At the end of the episode there appears to be a time travel blurb, or something equivalent, and it gives the appearance that the Axis had won WWII and there are Germans wearing uniforms of the era, etc. Is an episode like that, or any of the other Star Trek episodes that dealt with something similar, allowable on TV? Does it cause bad feelings? Is there a desire to see that in SciFi/Fantasy? Just curious. Danka.
Actually, the ones doing the pummeling should be charged with assualt.
They are responsible for their actions. Burning the flag does no harm to them, so they committed a violent action inresponse to someone else’s free speech?
Wow, bet they’re proud of themselves for protecting this country’s Freedoms….
A.) If you feel the invasion is wrong, then it’s wrong and you should be able to debunk the justifications on their merits.
And where the hëll have you been when we HAVE debunked this stupid @#$^ing war in Iraq?
Pulling daisies out of the ground?
would you be happy then?
*sarcasm* Of course I’m happy seeing our troops come home in body bags. Aren’t you? */sarcasm*
Standard conservative response in the face of criticism as to why the reasons we went to war in Iraq are suddenly not valid in going to war with some other countries.
Too bad it doesn’t fly.
Who’s to say we WON’T take care of these other countries in due time? I wouldn’t bet against it
You’re not much of a betting man then are you?
Bush picked the “soft target” in the hopes of getting his sorry ášš reelected.
God knows what he’ll do with another four years in office.
With Cheney’s hand shoved up Bush’s áršë, Bush would probably nuke the moon if he felt it would somehow get him a third term.
And I’m still wondering why every blasted conservative, when shown how their own logic for this war can be used against them, presumes to turn it into a “You’re a warmonger, you want dead troops” argument.
Yet, we’re the ones that invaded Iraq, USING THOSE SMEGGING REASONS.
It’s bloody @#$%ing pathetic.
While still on the subject of Memorial Day, just two things:
1.) Many of us, conservative and liberal alike, spend a good deal of time on this board talking about how patriotic we are and how we support the troops. Well, there is NOTHING you can do that could do more good for our past soldiers than to visit them at Veterans Hospitals. Most of these are underfunded, which is criminal, and if anyone wants to call their local Congressperson about THAT situation, well, go ahead.
But the really sad situation is that so many of these individuals who gave so much get so few visitors or in some cases no visitors at all. We are losing hundreds of World War II Veterans every day and even our Vietnam Veterans are at or near Social Security eligibility. As these brave men (and women) get older their contemporaries disappear, and many family members do what they can while still trying to maintain their own lives.
These people have so much history to share, so many stories to tell, and in many cases they have no one to talk to. Physical pain is one thing, but nothing can make a life seem so empty than loneliness.
So, please, try to make a commitment to yourselves to visit one veteran you don’t know. Chances are you will get more out of it than they will. I mean, why read about Captain America battling the nazis when these men actually DID it? If you’re a writer, what bettere resource of stories can there be? If you’re a teacher, what better way to learn something new?
Again, so many of these people simply want a pair of ears to listen to them, someone to converse with.
Some may tell you a funny story. This one World War II Vet told me about how when he was a young hothead on a ship, he told the chef, who was really slow, to “Hurry up and give me my food, mother—–r!” Little did he know that in the chef’s culture, that term is taken literally, meaning he thought he was actually being accused of having…uh, intimate relations with his own mother! In response, the chef threw a cleaver at him. This vet noted he had calmed down quite a bit both as a result of the incident and of getting older. But I will always remember his laughter as he told it.
Sometimes a visit can be touching. Maybe it was because he didn’t know me well, but this one Vietnam Vet told me about an awful experience he had on the battlefield. It was something he never told his wife, sister or psychologist about, but he told me. He cried and said it felt good to finally tell someone something he had kept quiet about for so long. He never wanted to burden anyone else he knew with his problems or experiences. in some cases, he had been afraid they might change some people’s opinions of him. But he told me, and when i told him he had done nothing to be ashamed about, he said “Thank you”. I’ll never forget that either.
Not all veterans will want to relive war stories, of course. Some will want to talk about how the Yankees are doing, or about “I Love Lucy” or Marilyn Monroe any number of things. Heck, the World War II Vets, in particular, may appreciate the gift of a comic book, since so many read them while they served.
The important thing is, they will have someone new to talk to. If you’re lucky, you may even make a friend. And you will do someone – a true American hero – a world of good.
Please try.
Thank you.
Craig,
You’re letting your anger get in the way of your logic. When you say stuff like “And I’m still wondering why every blasted conservative blah blah blah” it’s just plain old venting. The level of discourse here is usually above that.
Daremo, I’m involved with a forum discussing Enterprise-related matters at length, and the conclusion we’ve reached is that the events you describe must be taking place around 1943 or so (what year was the P-51 introduced, anyway?), and that therefore, the – er – unexpected character at the end is either another time-traveler (how many factions does the Temporal Cold War have, anyway?), or a plant, intended to either aid or destabilize the Nazi regime. (One of the hypotheses is that WWII is a tipping point between the histories leading to the Federation or the Terran Empire of mirror-universe fame, and perhaps our unusual friend is from the mirror world, trying to prevent the founding of the Empire.)
I hope I successfully avoided spoilers… 🙂
The level of discourse here is usually above that.
Too bad the level of logic isn’t.
Anger has nothing to do with it.
Daremo – Yes, Enterprise and most other popular american TV shows are aired in Germany. There was an episode in the 60s that the german channel didn’t air, I think it was called “patterns of Force” or something like that. All I know is that it dealt with Nazis and the TV station wasn’t comfortable showing this. I think they showed it for the first time in the 80s in one of the many reruns. As for Enterprise or other TV shows (I know that americans like their evil nazis), it’s absolutly no problem. We’re not living in the 60s anymore and if the station wouldn’t show this episode, they would get a lot of angry letters and emails by fans.
I believe, Pascal, that you are the first person I have ever seen call Entercrap a “popular American TV show.”
Sure, it’s an American show, but popular?
Sorry, Bill, I’m with Craig on this one. While his phrasing was perhaps somewhat less than diplomatic, I think his point is legitimate: all of the arguments used to justify Iraq can be applied at least as well to several other countries. Thus, since we’ve invaded X for a given list of reasons and not invaded Y despite the fact that the same reasons apply, there must be something incorrect or incomplete about the list of reasons.
The typical response he’s gotten is to be accused of bloodthirstiness and warmongering. That response, to me, reeks of someone who can’t address the logical argument.
TWL
“The typical response he’s gotten is to be accused of bloodthirstiness and warmongering. That response, to me, reeks of someone who can’t address the logical argument.”
Well, what else can we expect from a bloodthirsty warmonger?
(Sorry, couldn’t resist!) 🙂
I can’t do it here at work – it’d take too much time, and be too obvious – but when I get home, I keep meaning to link to an editorial column published yesterday, which discusses a college student’s honors thesis (listing a total of 23 reasons given by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq). Fascinating reading…
“I think his point is legitimate: all of the arguments used to justify Iraq can be applied at least as well to several other countries. Thus, since we’ve invaded X for a given list of reasons and not invaded Y despite the fact that the same reasons apply, there must be something incorrect or incomplete about the list of reasons.”
Well I haven’t accused him of anything of the kind, don’t know who has but that would certainly be a bad argument. I can recall a few folks saying that one reason for not invading North Korea as opposed to Iraq is that we can BEAT Iraq with relatively low cost of lives, which cannot be said for North Korea, even if they don’t yet have any working nukes (and I think that they may.
That doesn’t accuse him of bloodthirstiness and it is a logical response so what’s the problem?
Craig, God knows I don’t want to just set you off or anything but just who were the folks who called you a bloodthirsty warmonger? I’ve gone over a few back posts and can’t find them. Must have been quite a few to so convince you that it’s the standard conservative position.
And I keep asking when we’re going to invade every other country with these supposedly same “valid” reasons, yet I get called a warmonger.
Well, we waited twelve years and dozens of UN resolutions before we finally went back to Iraq. If you’re really trying to be comparable then twelve years and dozens of UN resolutions from now, we’ll invade North Korea, assuming they haven’t come around or we’re still a superpower. Frankly, I doubt we will be by then. Too many people are trying to thwart that from within.
Bill,
No one’s made that accusation against Craig this time around (though Jerome’s sort of hinted at it). I think Craig’s response is really aimed at all the times this has come up before — you’d have to dig through previous threads, but I distinctly remember multiple occasions where someone heavily for the Iraq invasion rebutted Craig by saying he was clearly for even more wars and more dead troops.
You’re also not really addressing Craig’s primary point here: if the reasons Congress and the public were given for the war apply equally well to North Korea, doesn’t that mean we either (a) should be invading them as well, or (b) shouldn’t have used those reasons to justify Iraq?
Adding in the criterion “well, we can BEAT Iraq” makes us look like bullies, in my view: we like to stand on principle, but only get into “principled” fights if we have overwhelming military superiority?
It may be a logical response, but I think it tends to beg the question. Why wasn’t it given as a reason at the time, for one thing?
TWL
If you’re really trying to be comparable then twelve years and dozens of UN resolutions from now, we’ll invade North Korea, assuming they haven’t come around or we’re still a superpower. Frankly, I doubt we will be by then. Too many people are trying to thwart that from within.
While I’m sure you intend that last sentence to be dámņìņg, I’ll go on record as saying that I’d be perfectly happy were the US not a superpower. I’d prefer that we be a free country and a healthy, constructive society — and right now, it’s looking like those are getting ever less compatible with our superpower status.
(And, of course, a lot of people in favor of the invasion are saying we waited way too long to do it. If your argument is “just wait 12 years”, then is it also your position that we shouldn’t have gone to Baghdad in ’91? I believe you’ve said differently in the past…)
TWL
And I’m still wondering why every blasted conservative, when shown how their own logic for this war can be used against them, presumes to turn it into a “You’re a warmonger, you want dead troops” argument.
When has this “blasted conservative” EVER called you a ‘warmonger’?
Neither do you use “my own logic” against me. Something always changes. In most cases, the “Why don’t we attack North Korea or one of these other countries?” scenario usually leaves out that we’ve fought them before WITH UN blessing, we stopped BECAUSE of the UN, we waited through dozens of UN resolutions that did nothing, the offending country violated terms of the cease-fire several times, any one of which would have been justifiable reason to go back in, and we had sanctions in place, for which we were being called murderers. as well.
Do any of the other countries you say we’re too afraid to invade meet all of these critieria? If so, then you have a point. If not, then you don’t.
While I’m sure you intend that last sentence to be dámņìņg, I’ll go on record as saying that I’d be perfectly happy were the US not a superpower.
Amazingly, I’ m neither surprised or shocked.
I’d prefer that we be a free country and a healthy, constructive society — and right now, it’s looking like those are getting ever less compatible with our superpower status.
In what ways?
(And, of course, a lot of people in favor of the invasion are saying we waited way too long to do it. If your argument is “just wait 12 years”, then is it also your position that we shouldn’t have gone to Baghdad in ’91? I believe you’ve said differently in the past…)
We went into Kuwait at the behest of that country’s government and the UN. We fought Saddam back over the border and back into Iraq. We NEVER WENT INTO BAGHDAD twelve years ago. We stopped, again at the behest of the UN, and other Arab countries which threatened to pull out of the coalition if we did. I’ve said that we should have and finished the job we started twelve years ago.
If North Korea invades South Korea or Japan, I believe we should go in immediately. Otherwise, just because they possess nuclear weapons is not justification enough to go to war with them. Iraq is not a comparable scenario.
When has this “blasted conservative” EVER called you a ‘warmonger’?
See Tim’s comments on the matter. He summed it up rather well.
Do any of the other countries you say we’re too afraid to invade meet all of these critieria? If so, then you have a point. If not, then you don’t.
We were going to invade Iraq with or without UN suppport. It turned out to be the latter. So I don’t see what UN resolutions or anything else have to do with this discussion.
If Bush decides tomorrow that Iran is the next target, he’s not going to wait for the UN’s say so.
And I don’t believe I’ve said we’re too afraid. If anything, I’m scared to death that Bush will spend the next 4 years bombing the crap out of these countries using the same justification he used on Iraq.
Sure, in some cases, like N. Korea, he’d have more justification.
But then, after the bs in Iraq, we’re not likely to get support for what could be a far more justifiable war.
We’ve shot ourselves in the foot over Iraq, and when we go after the next, legitimate target, we’ll be going in alone. And you can blame Bush for that.
If North Korea invades South Korea or Japan, I believe we should go in immediately. Otherwise, just because they possess nuclear weapons is not justification enough to go to war with them. Iraq is not a comparable scenario.
You’re making no sense whatsoever.
Having nukes is ok, but only go to war when they invade somebody else?
Yet it’s a good idea to invade Iraq now to make up for a perceived mistake 12 years ago?
Man, let’s just invade N. Korea again on the fact that they invaded S. Korea 50 years.
While I’m sure you intend that last sentence to be dámņìņg, I’ll go on record as saying that I’d be perfectly happy were the US not a superpower.
Amazingly, I’ m neither surprised or shocked.
I don’t doubt it. Based on your previous phrasing, however, I suspect you think it marks me as some sort of semi-traitorous Fifth Column type (though presumably not to that degree). I’m not. I agree pretty strongly with the statement made in 2000 that we should be a humble nation and a respected one. Who said that again? George someone or other…
I’d prefer that we be a free country and a healthy, constructive society — and right now, it’s looking like those are getting ever less compatible with our superpower status.
In what ways?
In the way that anyone who questions Bush’s Holy Policy is called unpatriotic, up to and including sitting senators who lost three limbs in Vietnam.
In the way that the Patriot Act has made librarians accomplices to crimes if they don’t give over information to Ashcroft when asked.
In the way that a disturbingly large fraction of this country holds the attitude that we shouldn’t give a rusty dámņ what anyone else thinks of us (up to and including the statement that it’s our nation’s “calling” to spread Americanism everywhere by force), and then get all shocked when others wind up thinking we’re arrogant and acting accordingly.
And, of course, in the way that we’re moving ever closer to reinstating the draft and bringing forced conscription for our Dear Leader’s war.
That’s the quick list.
(And, of course, a lot of people in favor of the invasion are saying we waited way too long to do it. If your argument is “just wait 12 years”, then is it also your position that we shouldn’t have gone to Baghdad in ’91? I believe you’ve said differently in the past…)
We went into Kuwait at the behest of that country’s government and the UN. We fought Saddam back over the border and back into Iraq. We NEVER WENT INTO BAGHDAD twelve years ago.
I’m aware of that, though my phrasing may have been unclear — apologies for the imprecision. Since your statement now is “just wait 12 years”, that suggests you think a wait of “12 years and lots of UN resolutions” is fine. You are now saying, as you have in the past, that we should have gone into Iraq THEN — which means your argument for waiting 12 years with respect to the other countries is spurious.
If North Korea invades South Korea or Japan, I believe we should go in immediately. Otherwise, just because they possess nuclear weapons is not justification enough to go to war with them. Iraq is not a comparable scenario.
Of course not. It doesn’t fit the lovely PNAC agenda for remaking the Middle East, and Kim Jong Il doesn’t have a neat pistol Bush can show off to guests.
TWL
Adding in the criterion “well, we can BEAT Iraq” makes us look like bullies, in my view: we like to stand on principle, but only get into “principled” fights if we have overwhelming military superiority?
Short answer–yes. Long answer–it make no sense to take actions that have no chance to make things better whatsoever. Attacking North Korea to try to make the area safer is illogical since there is NO scenario that does not result in the destruction of a good part of South Korea and possibly Japan (probably taiwan as well since the Chinese would have little to lose and our forces would be greatly reduced). It would be a monstrously DUMB thing to do (ok, there’s the easy setup for you Bushbashers).
It’s a good thing to want people to be free from tyranny and while it may not be idealistically pure to note that we CAN possibly achieve this in Sudan with relatively little risk while we CAN’T expect to do the same in China, I don’t think that this is a very good argument against trying to help the Sudanese.
Long answer–it make no sense to take actions that have no chance to make things better whatsoever.
I agree with that, which I hope isn’t a surprise. The fact that we’re given all these ideological reasons as absolute reasons why we MUST wage this war NOW, however, means that the justification really falls down when we don’t apply those reasons evenhandedly.
I’m not pushing for a war with North Korea (or Syria or Iran, two other countries that get mentioned a lot in this vein). I’m saying that the ideological reasons (“wanting to spread freedom”, whatever that means; wanting to remake the MIddle East; etc. etc.) are by and large a terribly bad justification for war under ANY circumstances. Self-defense, yes; defense of allies against a common enemy, yes; dealing with a threat that is clearly imminent, yes; acting as if we’ve the divine obligation to “save” everyone else, absolutely not.
And for the record, since you brought up the Sudan in your last post — while I certainly want to help the Sudanese, I would oppose a unilateral invasion of the Sudan for that purpose every bit as strongly as I did Iraq. There are other ways.
TWL
Tim says:
“And for the record, since you brought up the Sudan in your last post — while I certainly want to help the Sudanese, I would oppose a unilateral invasion of the Sudan for that purpose every bit as strongly as I did Iraq. There are other ways.’
Understood and appreciated. But it begs the question–at what point (if any) does one admit that the cost of “other means” is too high? Much as I hate to see Hitler dragged into EVERY war argument, suppose just for the argument that we COULD have brought down Germany through some embargoes or other non-war means but it would have required Hitler to have more or less free rein for 10 years. Fewer lives lost overall than the war.
Is it moral to allow evil–real capital E Evil–to occur as long as one is confident that it will eventually collapse on its own? Obviously the Sudanese genocide cannot continue forever, if only because the supply of victims is not endless. A combination of carrot (bribe the killers to stop killing) and stick (well, I don’t know exactly what non-military stick we could use…maybe just evacuate the ones being killed out and let them live here) might work eventually in the Sudan. But I think that a few nicely planned strikes might inflict enough pain on the oppressors to move the process along.
I don’t pretend to know with utter certainty what the “right” move is in this circumstance (and if one has as a fundamental rule no invasion/attacks against any country not actively threatening ones own, then the “right” move will obviously be different.).
(I just noticed the word “unilateral” in your last sentence. Would a “multilateral” invasion be ok? And if so what is the number one must achieve to be truly multi?)
I’m not busting your chops here (or deliberately trying to take you away from grading your student’s tests, though, that’s probably the result).
Me:
And for the record, since you brought up the Sudan in your last post — while I certainly want to help the Sudanese, I would oppose a unilateral invasion of the Sudan for that purpose every bit as strongly as I did Iraq. There are other ways.
Bill:
Understood and appreciated. But it begs the question–at what point (if any) does one admit that the cost of “other means” is too high? Much as I hate to see Hitler dragged into EVERY war argument, suppose just for the argument that we COULD have brought down Germany through some embargoes or other non-war means but it would have required Hitler to have more or less free rein for 10 years. Fewer lives lost overall than the war.
A legitimate (and interesting) question, though I’m not sure the historical parallel is all that great.
For one thing, we didn’t go after Hitler because of his campaigns against the Jews, as moral a stand as that would have been. Europe declared war on Hitler after he started invading other countries, and the U.S. only helped out surreptitiously until we were attacked.
For that matter, as I understand it not that much was KNOWN about the Holocaust until it was well after the fact to do any good.
Leaving that aside for a moment, though — I think regimes in general will collapse under their own weight and don’t need us muscling in and knocking them over. If some aspect of military force is needed to stop “real capital E evil” from occurring and victimizing huge numbers of people, then I think that’s probably justified more often than not … but it’s also the sort of thing that would need to be examined case by case.
But I think that a few nicely planned strikes might inflict enough pain on the oppressors to move the process along.
Agreed — but “a few nicely planned strikes” are precisely the sort of thing a lot of people came down on Clinton for when it came to Iraq. I’d be much more willing to support a few strikes intended to make a “hands off” message clear than I would a wholesale invasion, be it Sudan or Newfoundland.
I don’t know exactly what the “right” move is either — shades of grey always make such things difficult. In part, several of the huge issues for me would be transparency, openness, and honesty. We need to be up front with ourselves and with other nations (both allies and not) about what we’re doing and why. That’s one of the fundamental tests Iraq has utterly failed with me.
(I just noticed the word “unilateral” in your last sentence. Would a “multilateral” invasion be ok? And if so what is the number one must achieve to be truly multi?)
Obviously it depends on the situation, but as I’ve said in past threads, I’m a pretty committed internationalist. I’ve yet to think of a scenario where I’d opt for a unilateral move over a multilateral one if both were possible. When it comes to using military power, that distinction is even more crucial: if it’s just one country it looks like an imposition of will, while a true coalition of forces makes it more feasible for us to claim some higher purpose.
There’s no magic number that makes something “okay” rather than not, but I think I can sum it up this way: if we want to wage war on the grounds of morality or ideology, the moral goals and benefits of the action should be so obvious and so self-evident that countries will be fighting for the honor of working at our side.
Again, Iraq fails that test — there’s not a single leader in that “coalition” who seems to have allied themselves with us for anything faintly resembling a good reason. Zapatero was the first to leave office; I’m quite confident there will be others in the relatively near future, Bush and Blair hopefully included.
And now, back to the last of my students’ exams. 🙂
TWL
It would be a monstrously DUMB thing to do (ok, there’s the easy setup for you Bushbashers).
Yeah, you set yourself up on that one. 😉
So, now Bush is comparing the War on Terrorism to WWII.
Can I start crying now?
Everyone,
Sorry for interrupting the fun debate again. But I’m pretty sure I can address many of the claims in some of these posts in the near future on another thread.
Before it fades into memory, I just wanted to try and pull the conversation, however briefly, back to Memorial Day into PAD’s original point, which was a “small-town feel” and how he feels even though we have the RIGHT to burn the flag, how none of us should, because it gives off more heat than light.
Many mock the conventions of “small-town America” and consider the flag to be a “worthless piece of cloth”. In response, I can muster some anger but mostly sadness.
I really wish the posters here on both sides of the aisle had taken the time and inclination, for this one thread at least, to talk about how proud you are of the men and women who have are, and will continue to serve. Or what you feel America at it’s idealistic best represents. Or, like PAD, talk about a time that made you feel pretty good to be here.SOMETHING other than another Bush and Iraq War is Right/ Bush and Iraq War is Wrong argument thread.
I mean, I enjoy a good bare-knuckled argument as much as anybody. But sometimes you need to stop, take a deep breath and smell the roses before you start arguing again about why what we’re doing is right or how we can do things differently.
That’s all.
One more Memorial Day note:
Dave Cockrum, the often-overlooked father of the modern X-Men, is currently lying in a hospital seriously illand unsure of his release.
Cockrum, 60, brethed life into such beloved X-Men characters as Nightcrawler, Colossus and Storm. Now, today, as they have become big-screen sensations and generate millions of dollars world wide, he struggles to breathe from an oxygen tank affixed to his wheelchair, unable to afford any medical treatment beyond what little the government grants him as a Vietnam War veteran.
If you would like to help this man who served his country and gave us characters responsible for hours of entertainment, his medical expenses can be defrayed by sending checks to :
Dave Cockrum Fund
c/o Wizard Entertainment
151 Wells Ave.
Congers, NY 10920
I don’t doubt it. Based on your previous phrasing, however, I suspect you think it marks me as some sort of semi-traitorous Fifth Column type (though presumably not to that degree). I’m not. I agree pretty strongly with the statement made in 2000 that we should be a humble nation and a respected one.
It means what it means. I’m not shocked or surprised that that you express such sentiments based your responses in our previous debates. Despite my rather vociferous disagreements with PAD about the LIMITS of free speech, I have no problems with the CONCEPT of free speech. Short of anyone here threatening to physically or mentally harm me or any of my friends, family or acquaintences, I have no problems with you or your views, nor do I assign any label to anyone more extreme than far left liberal or far right conservative. Unless you want to count the word that Peter uses a lot and that’s growing on me, as well, “git”. I’ve yet to find anyone appropriate enough to saddle with it, but there are some rather promising candidates online here and there.
In the way that anyone who questions Bush’s Holy Policy is called unpatriotic, up to and including sitting senators who lost three limbs in Vietnam.
First, that’s a bunch of crap. Even Bush’s own father has questioned his son’s wisdom in fighting Iraq, as has Colin Powell, as has Rush Limbaugh, as has Bill Krystol.
There’s a difference though between questioning someone’s plans and just down right saying that we’re all wrong to do something at all. I might question whether or not Bush had enough soldiers in Iraq, I don’t publicly question that we should BE in Iraq.
If your girlfriend, wife, boyfriend or partner went around telling your deepest darkest fears to everyone (s)he met and publicly questioning your sanity how inclined would you be toward trusting them anymore?
In the way that the Patriot Act has made librarians accomplices to crimes if they don’t give over information to Ashcroft when asked.
It makes me question why librarians were keeping that information in the first place. And the Patriot Act only expands the scope of his jurisdiction. He STILL has to go before a judge to get permission.
Ken Starr had to go before a judge to get a subpoena for Monica Lewinsky’s reading list as well, (which he got without the Patriot Act) so making it about Ashcroft may make you feel better, but has little bearing on fact.
Jerome,
your above statements were very thoughtful & correct. Bravo, Dude, Bravo.
I live in small town, USA & i tell you the truth, I wouldn’t live anywhere else. God Bless The USA, now & forever, AMEN!
Well said Mr. David. While I don’t agree with your politics, I always respect your opinion. I agree with you this time, by the way. =o)
I come from England,as differenciated (pardon spelling) from Gt Britain.
Now we have a flag,not the union jack all you Americans know, but a red cross on a white back ground the”St Georges cross”. It’s been hijacked by racist groups (TheBNP, neo nazi idiots) a lot
these days I see MY national flag and kinda,CRINGE with shame
burning a symbol you are proud of like a petulant child is dumb.
But worse things can happen to symbols.
DJK
It makes me question why librarians were keeping that information in the first place.
Well, the obvious answer is, like book stores, knowing what has been coming and going can help determine in the future what they need to keep in stock, and what new stuff they should pick up.
Although, whether they need to keep a full record of everything is another matter, compared to, say, keeping what you’ve taken in the last month, and the rest is dumped into a general listing that doesn’t include the names of those who borrowed what.
It makes me question why librarians were keeping that information in the first place.
Librarians have to keep an eye out for people who wish to use L-Space incorrectly. Or summon annoying dragons. Or steal their bananas…
Oook!
Travis
Does the Librarian still thump people who try to make off with his bananas, or does he just send them to talk with the folks in the High-Energy Magic building?
Yeah, yeah.
It’s good we can burn the flag if we want to. How dare anyone suggest I can not burn a flag? On the other hand, the whole thing is totally unimportant as it can be, eh? The same number of turnips will be buttered per capita whether we can light up a flag or not. This is a silly sideshow the Right-wing runs to shore up it’s base.
I can’t believe they are still pushing this mostly meaningless amendment. I thought they’d given it up. They could care less about this, this is just a feel-good nonissue that makes them look patriotic when they are really cynically playing with the First Amendment.
I’ll tell you one thing, I’ve never wanted to burn a flag but if they pass this amendment I’m going to be toasting up plenty of them.
Burn flaggy, burn. Burn flaggy, Burn!