When you think of the vast percentage of Americans who can’t be bothered to come out and vote…and that musicians develop an overwrought campaign called “Vote Or Die,” which really doesn’t mean much of anything, as opposed to the “Vote And Die” message being spread by Iraqi terrorists…
It’s just pretty dámņëd impressive, the Iraqis turning out to vote in their first election. Make no mistake, it’s still a horror show, we still shouldn’t be over there, Bush lied to America, and Bush’s List continues to grow. But at least Iraqis are braving all manner of risk to vote, as opposed to many Americans who are so cavalier about a right they never earned or had to fight for.
PAD
• 
Fun with reading comprehension. In response to kingbob’s statement That statement in no way denigrates the Colonial fighters. It’s just meant to bring caution to those that would decry any act of terrorism., I said:
Then it’s a tremendous non sequitur. If you want to make the argument that, to the British, George Washington was a traitor, you’re right. But why in the would would you want to exercise caution in decrying an ACT of terrorism?
Kingbob replied, Simply because one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
And then someone else jumped in and stated, Possibly because the example of the US Revolution demonstrates that the usual attitude runs “I am a freedom fighter, you are a revolutionary, he/she/it is a terrorist”, and one person’s terrorist is another’s Heroic Freedom Fighter.
OK, that’s why I specifically said, IN ALL CAPS, an “ACT of terrorism.” You can support whichever political faction you like, but a car bomb is a car bomb. Attacks on civilian targets are attacks on civilian targets. I don’t give a flying fûçk whether you’re in favor of a unified Ireland or British control of Ulster, but ACTS of terrorism are unacceptable whatever your political beliefs.
kingbob wrote in a separate part of this debate, And I’m not even really saying there’s anything wrong with trying to influence through boycotting actions, just pointing out that claiming to support free speech while calling for a boycott based on suppressing ideas is hypocritical.
I understand with your point, but I disagree with it. If I recall correctly, you previously noted that boycotts are themselves a manifestation of free speech. How is it hypocritical to proclaim support for the very right that you are exercising? Make no mistake, I think it’s petty. My disagreement with a huge majority of PAD’s political beliefs are irrelevant to my purchasing decisions (although, while we’re sort of on the subject, I did think the third Apropos book was a little preachy). But the Domino’s Pizza analogy is, in fact, entirely apropos– I don’t recall that boycott being criticized on the basis of limiting the Domino’s owner’s right of free expression. I think you have to either accept boycotts in their entirety as acceptable, or not. I don’t believe you can cherry-pick targets of boycotts and proclaim some to be hypocritical. I don’t think you can distinguish between boycotts based on their motives, because boycotts are free expressions. People have often said that the cure for bad free speech is more and better free speech. If we believe that, we have to accept that Gehrie has the right to think that the cure for PAD’s free speech is his own free speech. He’s not the one being hypocritcal. He is, as I said, being petty, but that’s not the same thing.
Make it truly democratic and representative. No one is allowed to run for office, citizenship and SSN are drawn at random from eligible candidates in the appropriate district (2 dsenators from each state, 1 rep from each district, Pres and Vice Pres from the entire national pool…, etc)
Random != democratic. Democracy requires that the governed choose their governors. Having nobody choose the governors would scarcely be an improvement. Whatever you may think of the choices we are presented with in alternate Novembers, for the most part the system does weed out the David Dukes and the Eugene Debses.
Democracy requires that the governed choose their governors.
Which we aren’t anyways.
We are a Republic, which means we have representative democracy, and even then, we don’t vote in federal judges, cabinet members, nor technically our own president & vice president.
We don’t get to vote on filling vacanies on the Supreme Court either….
“OK, that’s why I specifically said, IN ALL CAPS, an “ACT of terrorism.” You can support whichever political faction you like, but a car bomb is a car bomb. Attacks on civilian targets are attacks on civilian targets. I don’t give a flying fûçk whether you’re in favor of a unified Ireland or British control of Ulster, but ACTS of terrorism are unacceptable whatever your political beliefs.”
I know that I really shouldn’t provoke the internet law that says sooner or later, all discussions hit world war 2 and then are essentially over, and I’m not just trying to be a smartass, but does your definition of “attacks on civilian targets” mean that firebombing dresden, bombing hiroshima and nagasaki were terroist acts?
Jon, in my opinion, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the biggest acts of terrorism this world has ever seen.
David, to a point, I agree with you. Although I hope I haven’t given the impression that I feel that some boycotts are consistent with the concept of free speech, and others not. I think all boycots are incompatible with the ideals behind free speech.
I do recognize that boycotts have been protected under the Constitution as free speech. I don’t think they should be…free speech protections end when you start taking actions based on your ideas. boycotts take an idea (“I don’t like company/person X”) and take the next step, that is, organizing others into a group that is taking collective action to drive company/person X to change their behavoir. It’s not really answering one idea with another idea, it’s responding to an idea with economic pressure in order to get the other party to conform to your way of thinking. Free speech involves an exchange of ideas. If there’s a competition between the ideas, then it should be limited to the merits of each idea, not whoever has the most economic power.
Having said that, I recognize that organized boycotts are often the only way an individual can hope to match the economic power of a corporation, which is probably part of the reason why free speech protections are extended to boycotts.
Maybe the cases where people here have tried to boycott PAD have emphasized the negatives of the boycott, when it is directed against an individual, rather than a mega corporation.
Hmmm, after thinking about that boycott thing some more, I think there is a distinction, and that the cause for the boycott matters. If the goal of the boycott is to combat an idea that you dislike (boycotting PAD because of his political views, especially when they are not blatantly pushed in his public works) is inconsistant with the concept of free speech.
Boycotting McDonalds because they use processed cat parts in place of beef is protesting an act, not an expression. In that case, there’s nothing inconsistant with the concepts of free speech.
Ok, show of hands: How many people did I just totally confuse?
Jon, in my opinion, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the biggest acts of terrorism this world has ever seen.
Only because you have confused the meaning of a “terrorist act” and an “act of war.” Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor is a far greater act of “terrorism,” if you want to change the meaning of the term. The fact that we used one bomb to tens of thousands rather than 10,000 bombs to kill tens of thousands is really irrelevant. Either way, people were killed. The more important fact is that Japan was very clearly the aggressor and that we were defending ourselves.
Iowa Jim
Jim, the difference is that Japan attacked a military target, the Pacific US fleet at Pearl Harbor. Sure, it was a sneak attack, and I’m sure some civilians were killed during the attack, but the target was the US’ Military capacity. In that case, it was only a matter of time before the US entered, and Japan’s strategic plan of eliminating the US capacity to wage a naval war before war could be declared was sound (as far as aggressive, militaristic expansionist strategies go).
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were primarily civilian targets intended not to destroy Japan’s capacity to wage war, but to use fear as a weapon to destroy Japan’s willingness to wage war. Yes, we were defending ourselves. Yes, we had a right to. Did every one of the tens of thousands of Japanese civilians killed in those 2 events support the Emporer’s war?
Name me one incident (other than the event protrayed in the movie 1941…an excellent piece of historical film if ever there was one) that involved a Japanese attack on civilians. I can’t recall one. Which is not to say that Japan was in the right. And clearly there’s evidence that Japan conducted horrifying experiments on POWs. None of which excuses the US’ use of a weapon of terror as anything other than a terrorist act, as defined by today’s standards. The fact that they were deployed during a time of war against our enemy does not change that.
Did every one of the tens of thousands of Japanese civilians killed in those 2 events support the Emporer’s war?
It comes down to simple logic: You can take all the figures you want about how many were killed, civilian or otherwise, in the two nuclear attacks.
Or you can try and figure out how many lives, civilian or otherwise, would have been lost had the US been forced to do an invasion of Japan.
Look what the Germans did to England during WW2 with their bombings. I wonder how many civilians were lost there. But you don’t see people calling that a “terrorist” attack. Cripes.
I’m sure most would agree that if the US had to do a “conventional” attack on Japan, more lives would have been lost.
“Name me one incident (other than the event protrayed in the movie 1941…an excellent piece of historical film if ever there was one) that involved a Japanese attack on civilians.”
The Rape of Nanking.
Mcdonald’s uses beef?
🙂
You may also want to look up Unit 731 while you’re googling the Rape of Nanking.
Craig, if we’re going to use “attack against civilian targets” as the definition of a terrorist attack, than the V2, V1, and daily bombing of London etc. by Germany all would be called terrorist attacks. They weren’t directed at military targets, and they were intended to use fear as a weapon.
Does that make them invalid or immoral attacks? Not as far as acts of war go. The question of “is there a moral war” is one that is far older than any of us here, and we’re no more likely to come to an agreement on it than any other debate that has occurred over the past 5,000 years.
If a terrorist act can only be commited by a non-aligned group of individuals, then no, very few of the actions and atrocities committed during WWII would be called terrorist actions. Essentially, countries and governments are incapable of committing terrorist acts by definition.
Nanjing….well, there’s a huge, gaping hole in my history education. Now, thanks to the wonders of the internet, filled by warm, gooey images of rape and murder….
Craig, if we’re going to use “attack against civilian targets” as the definition of a terrorist attack, than the V2, V1, and daily bombing of London etc. by Germany all would be called terrorist attacks. They weren’t directed at military targets, and they were intended to use fear as a weapon.
Does that make them invalid or immoral attacks? Not as far as acts of war go.
Hold on a second. You consider the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki immoral (since you called them terrorist attacks), but not the “vengeance weapons” assault on London?
Does that make them invalid or immoral attacks? Not as far as acts of war go.
Also part of the quoted text.
Actually, I don’t view any of the war-time acts being discussed as moral or immoral (with maybe the exception of the Nanjing events…those were plainly evil). I was just responding to the idea that terrorist attacks were those directed toward civlian rather than military target. Under that definition, the nuclear attacks against Japan were of a terrorist nature. Bringing that forward to today’s “terrorists = evil” mentality, then the US acted in an evil way.
The morality of such is something others have talked about. Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought about the surrender of Japan, so they are seen by some to be morally acceptable.
As Jim suggested, what you call these attacks is kind of irrelevant. People die as a result either way. Is one death better than another? I know some would argue that civilian deaths are worse than those of soldiers, but that’s a personal issue, and not something that I think a consensus can decide.
Essentially, countries and governments are incapable of committing terrorist acts by definition.
So… where does that leave Iraq? Iran? N Korea?
Terrorist nations indeed.
I would not just use “attacks on civilians” as a definition of terrorism. I think it has to be three things:
1) An attack on a non-military target
2) The attacker is passing themselves off as a civilian (they aren’t wearing a military uniform of a state sponsor).
3) There is no declared war by a sponsor state.
In WWII, we bombed Hiroshima from a US military plane during declared hostilities between the two countries. Therefore, it was not a terrorist act.
Kingbobb wrote:
Nanjing….well, there’s a huge, gaping hole in my history education. Now, thanks to the wonders of the internet, filled by warm, gooey images of rape and murder….
I always thought my history education was pretty solid. Not excellent, but solid. I believed this because I aced every history class I ever had, in high school and college.
Recently, I’ve been obsessed with the American Revolution, and if what I didn’t know about that war is any indication, then my “solid” education in history is close to the average American citizen’s knowledge about Fallen Angel.
Kingbobb wrote:
Nanjing….well, there’s a huge, gaping hole in my history education. Now, thanks to the wonders of the internet, filled by warm, gooey images of rape and murder….
Robin S:
>I always thought my history education was pretty solid. Not excellent, but solid. I believed this because I aced every history class I ever had, in high school and college.
>Recently, I’ve been obsessed with the American Revolution, and if what I didn’t know about that war is any indication, then my “solid” education in history is close to the average American citizen’s knowledge about Fallen Angel.
I hear ya. I still remember hearing some of the original motivators for the American Revolution and statistics about British taxes and treatment of the colonists, possible financial gains of the initial leaders of the revolution, etc and shaking my head at the beginning of my understanding of how one-sided history and modern day “news” is.
Fred
Robin S, indeed, it makes one wonder. I by no means criticize the staff and program offered by my high school. Yet, given that I don’t recall any large uproar about curriculum back then, and given efforts today to, let’s say, *amend* what is taught in schools, you really have to wonder what huge, gaping holes today’s kids are going to have.
KingBobb:
>Robin S, indeed, it makes one wonder. I by no means criticize the staff and program offered by my high school. Yet, given that I don’t recall any large uproar about curriculum back then, and given efforts today to, let’s say, *amend* what is taught in schools, you really have to wonder what huge, gaping holes today’s kids are going to have.
One has to understand the fact that young children have a difficult time grasping the concept of moral ambiguities as well as one of the initial motivations and original designs of public education as being that of producing good and productive citizens. It makes sense to me that concepts are taught as more black and white at a younger age, but the fact that these “historical facts” aren’t ever fully colored in is a bit disturbing. A mentor in my undergraduate program at Penn State told us a story of his teaching a more complete picture of history and, in particular, of the roots of the American Revolution. A faculty member caught wind of this and, without hesitation, lectured him in front of a faculty break room full of other teachers and administrators, on teaching lies to the children [high school kids, mind you]. This guy said nothing in response, but the next day came in with a dozen original sources to back him up. Which one looked like a moron? 😉
People are imperfect and everyone has multiple motivations behind their actions. It is when we, as a society, put on our blinders to that fact and decide that it makes us feel better to march in step with whatever is going on, rather than explore and educate ourselves, that we find ourselves marching down a dangerous and often repeated path.
Fred
“So… where does that leave Iraq? Iran? N Korea?
Terrorist nations indeed.”
If any of the mentioned countries (or any other) is training or supplying nongovernment entities to carry out attacks on other nations, THAT would make them party to terrorist acts.
North Korea bombing the USA, that would just be an act of war. And the last thing they would ever do but that’s beside the point.
Re- Nanking. I love the Japanese. Love them. Love the culture, the art, the rich history…but the treatment of the Chinese during WWII is a black mark that cannot be erased, at least not as long as the current generation seems so determined to sweep it under the rug. It’s not that I ever believe that people have to be ashamed of acts that their ancestors did–I hold no German under the age of 75 responsible for Hitler’s atrocities and, with all respect to my native american friends, when they start talking about how I slaughtered innocents at Sand Creek I want to explain to them how they must have mistaken me for a much older gentleman–but you have to at least be able to admit that SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED! The refusal to do so may explain why the Koreans and Chinese are still so pìššëd.
Aye, Bill, reading about what happened at Nanjing, it explains a little. Although I’m sure if you look back far enough, you’d see something similar from the Chinese directed against the Japanese, although most likely not on the same scale. And from some excerpts, individuals involved in Nanjing have expressed remorse, but I don’t recall anything official from the government.
And I just KNEW I recognized you…and now I know…I remember it well, like it was yesterday….it was a cold day at Sand Creek….
Actually, I don’t view any of the war-time acts being discussed as moral or immoral (with maybe the exception of the Nanjing events…those were plainly evil).
There’s no “maybe” about it.
I was just responding to the idea that terrorist attacks were those directed toward civlian rather than military target. Under that definition, the nuclear attacks against Japan were of a terrorist nature.
It’s not the same thing at all. The U.S. had been at war with Japan since 1941. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deemed military targets, as they were both industrial cities. Furthermore, the decision to drop the bomb was based on the realisation that a D-Day-style invasion of the Japanese home islands would result in at least one million casualties. Faced with that staggering figure, and the fact that so many millions of lives had already been lost over the course of the way, Harry Truman made the decision to use the bomb. It was a terrible decision, but that doesn’t make it a wrong or unsound one. And it certainly wasn’t an unprovoked act of terror.
Actually, I don’t view any of the war-time acts being discussed as moral or immoral (with maybe the exception of the Nanjing events…those were plainly evil). I was just responding to the idea that terrorist attacks were those directed toward civlian rather than military target.
Thanks for the clarification. I admit, I do see the word “terrorist” and “terrorism” as being immoral and evil. Hence my reaction to your use of the term. Obviously what we did was done to strike “terror” into the Japanese. But, and this is a dangerous path to take I admit, I do think that when we are attacked we must do what it takes to win. Even if that means attacking civilian targets. Torturing, rape, etc., are NOT necessary to win. But killing, unfortunately, is. I would prefer we target military targets, but that is a luxury that is rather recent. In the past, you had to conquer everyone in your path in order to win.
While you can’t read someone’s mind, you can look at their actions. When Japan conquered, they enslaved. When we conquered (both in Japan and in Europe), we then rebuilt and empowered. That is a key difference between our actions during a war and the acts of a true terrorist. We only terrorized in order to preserve our own lives. They terrorized in order to usurp control of another country and its resources. (And whether we were right to invade Iraq or not, that is also the difference today between us and the insurgent and other terrorists.)
Iowa Jim
If any of the mentioned countries (or any other) is training or supplying nongovernment entities to carry out attacks on other nations, THAT would make them party to terrorist acts.
We supported bin Laden. Does this make us a terrorist supporting state? Probably.
We supported Saddam, knowing who he was from the start, and then we accuse him of being a terrorist as well.
It seems like we need to stop worrying about everybody else and perhaps look at the blood on our own hands for once.
But then, I’ve not seen anybody, aside from this Administration, insinuate that a sovereign nation that is recognized around the world can be a terrorist nation/state/what have you.
Such as North Korea.
Bush & Co. are just playing the Card of Fear… over and over. “You’re with us or against us” over and over.
And if you’re against us, you are a terrorist, regardless.
“We supported bin Laden. Does this make us a terrorist supporting state? Probably.”
My understanding is that we supported the Afghani rebels during their occupation by the Soviet Union. Some of those rebels later became the Taliban, which became supporters of Bin Laden’s Al Quaeda. That’s not quite the same thing.
Bill Mulligan,
“We supported bin Laden. Does that make us a terrorist state? Probably.”
‘My understanding is that we supported the Afghani rebels during their occupation by the Soviet Union.Some of those rebels later became the Taliban, which became supporters of Bin Laden’s Al-Quaeda.That’s not quite the same thing.’
Your understanding is correct Bill. But of course it is “the same thing” to those who are determined to Blame America First.
That’s not quite the same thing.
Really? We created bin Laden, we created Saddam, and we created a few other dictators.
And I refuse to buy the “lesser of two evils” argument on why we *had* to support these guys in the first place, only to drop bombs on them later.
But now we say that anybody that doesn’t fall in line is a terrorist, that they’re out to get America.
Hmmm, after thinking about that boycott thing some more, I think there is a distinction, and that the cause for the boycott matters. If the goal of the boycott is to combat an idea that you dislike (boycotting PAD because of his political views, especially when they are not blatantly pushed in his public works) is inconsistant with the concept of free speech.
I disagree with you there. You’re basically taking the position that, in order to be true to the ideals of free speech, the erstwhile boycotter has to shut up. Morally it’s no different from any other tactic that people use to shout down their opponents. If shouting down your opponent is per se unethical, then there’s a host of free-speech protected activities that are hypocritical. Raucous protests outside the Republican National Convention spring to mind.
Craig,
‘That’s not quite the same thing.’
“Really? We created Bin Laden”
Really? I thought his parents did.
“we created Saddam and we created a few other dictators.”
I realize your hatred for Bush and eagerness to blame America for basically all the world’s problems has rendered facts and basic information virtually irrelevant to your postings, but it would be nice if gave some weight to them.
The French played a larger role in “creating” Saddam than we ever did. And they seemed to enjoy it so much they continued to do it to the day he fell from power, even if it meant turning a blind eye to the Oil For Food Scandal.
“And refuse to buy the “lesser of two evils” argument on why we had to support these guys in the first place, only to drop bombs on them later.”
First, what a very black-and-white postion to take! So you’re saying there are only “good” countries and “bad” countries, and that we can never deal with or interact with “bad” countries even if it means helping them against other “bad” countries, because then, gee, that would make us “not so good”.
And that would be bad.
Second, some of these allies became our enemy years after the fact. Heck, I have some people I couldn;t stand growing up who i a now close friends with and i have former friends who have turned into obnoxious, pompous douchebags. Unless you have a crystal ball, spare us the righteous indignation.
Someone “betraying” us or “revealing” themselves after the fact hardly compares to those who harbor those who want TO KILL US RIGHT NOW!
Third,did you ever take a history course? In World War II we were faced with dangerous Japan and a man called Hitler from Germany. Hitler was actually allies with this man called Joseph Stalin, who was head of something called the Soviet Union. It is estimated that Stalin killed about 15 million people.
But when Stalin turned against Hitler, the U.S., Britain and others were suddenly allies with Stalin.
Would you argue that we should not have “dirtied” ourselves by joining forces with a mass murderer, whose country would be our chief rival/threat for the next 4 1/2 decades, to stop the immediate, growing threat of Hitler.
This is the way the world works sometimes. You have to make hard choices, and sometimes you have to face the consequences of those choices. But it sure beats not making any choice at all.
The French played a larger role in “creating” Saddam than we ever did. And they seemed to enjoy it so much they continued to do it to the day he fell from power, even if it meant turning a blind eye to the Oil For Food Scandal.
Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld about that handshake with Saddam some time.
Or Cheney about Halliburton’s dealings with Iraq and Iran. While they were under US sanctions.
You’re the one that makes it sound black & white, that we’re oh so righteous and always doing what’s best for the world…
Only if you believe that creating more terrorists has made the world a safer place. Enjoy such delusions, Jerome.
Jerome,
Stop accusing people who criticize the actions of this administration of “blaming America first.” Are you implying that because we do not agree with the direction this country is being led that we somehow love the USA less than you? No one is blaming America. We are blaming the wrong-headed policies of the people that should be looking out for the best interests of all people in this country, not just attempting to give more wealth to those who already have enough.
Craig,
‘The French played a larger role in “creating” Saddam than we ever did. And they seemed to enjoy it so much they continued to do it to the day he fell from power, even if it meant turning a blnd eye to the Oil For Food Scandal.’
“Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld about that handshake with Saddam some time.”
Next time I see him I will, just for you.
“Or Cheney about Halliburton’s dealings with Iraq and Iran. Whle they were under U.N. sanctions.”
Gee, is it possible for Democrats/lberals/ Bush haters to talk about any topic without bringing up Halliburton? Or domestic policy without mentioning Enron?
It’s like a bad comedy…
TEACHER: What do you think about giving aid to improving the infrastructure of those hit by the tsunami?
CRAIG RIES: It’s probably not a good idea.
TEACHER: Why not?
CRAIG RIES: Because Cheney will make sure all the contracts and profits go to Halliburton.
TEACHER: Hmmm…Okay, what do you think of the motivations for war with Iraq?
CRAIG RIES: Well, I know a huge reason was so Cheney would make sure he got contracts for Halliburton.
TEACHER: Okay, what about Bush’s plan to settle the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
CRAIG RIES: I don’t think it will work, because if there’s peace Cheney won’t be able to give his buddies at Halliburton contracts for future wars.
TEACHER: (starting to get agitated) Okay, let’s switch the subject. What can someone tell me about the political and cultural situation in Iran?
CRAIG RIES: Doesn’t really matter. Cheney is going to have Bush invade Iran soon so his Halliburton buddies can get even bigger contracts.
TEACHER: (clearing throat) There are some who say many of the Iraqi insurgents are coming from Syria, and that Iraq’s WMD are there. Any opinions?
CRAIG RIES: Those are just lies to justify another invasion to make money for Cheney’s buddies at Halliburton.
TEACHER: Oooookay! Now, we all know North Korea is a potential threat. How should we handle it?
CRAIG RIES: More propaganda from the Bush Admnistration to justify an invasion so Cheney can make money for Halliburton.
TEACHER: AAAAAAAAHHHH!!! Class dismissed!
Seriously, though, you equate possible giving of arms two decades ago against a common enemy to the Oil For Food Scandal?
That money was EXPLICTLY to be used for food and medicine for average ctizens. Yet the French were basically paid to look the other way.
That is a bribe. And it is disgusting. And ANYONE proven to be involved when the dust clears, be it Marc Rich or Jaques Chirac or Jack Kemp or Kofi Annan’s son deserves to burn in hëll.
“You’re the one that makes t sound black and white, that we’re oh-so-righteous and always doing what’s best for the world.”
Not always, but more often than not. And I refuse to apologize for looking after or defending our interests.
Sorry.
“Only if you believe that creating more terrorists has made the world a safer place. Enjoy such delusions, Jerome.”
It would be a delusion if your statement were a fact and not simply your opinion, which it clearly is.
No, what I enjoy seeing is the image of Iraqis dancng in the streets after their historic election last weekend.
I enjoy tales of soldiers who have come back from Iraq near where I live and talk about how good it felt to help build a school, or the many people who thanked them for being there.
And they have been very angry with media coverage that has almost totally been negative.
But the success of the election has changed things somewhat. Because such a strong turnout means there is at least a grain of truth to Bush’s claim that a stable, free Iraq is possible, one that can be an ally in the region serve as a model for other Arab nations and REDUCE the number of terrorists.
Any other conclusion is a delusion.
Karen,
“Jerome,
Stop accusing people who criticize the actions of this Admnistration of ‘blaming America first”.
Funny, never actually said that, as i’ll explain more fully below.
“Are you implying that because we do not agree with the direction this country is being led that we somehow love the USA less than you?”
No. You are inferring that. I was responding specifically to Craig’s “we don’t look at the blood o our own hands” comment and similar statements made by others.
Because, frankly, have grown tired of illogical and unfactual “everything sucks” mentality. I have grown tired of inflammatory statements and ideas going unanswered. So I am answering them. If doing so hits you the wrong way, let me say that that is regrettable – since you are one of my favorite people on this board – but I am not going to stop saying what I feel. That is MY right, and I cannot control how you react to things.
“No one is blaming America.”
Bull. People like Michael Moore make a good living going around the world blaming again. But if you’re limiting the talk to the posts here, let’s see..
You alone used the word ASHAMED about five tmes in one post in the past week, and have stated “there are so many things wrong with this country I can’t begin to list them all.” PAD has claimed the U.S. has “jumped the shark” and made a mild analogy to us following the path of Nazi Germany. Tim Lynch has stated he would like to see the U.S. lose it’s superpower status, basicaly because he does not like what we’ve done as the sole superpower…which goes beyond this Administration. Craig Ries compares the minor probles in Ohio to the Ukrainian candidate being poisoned, and says as a result we have no standing to say anything about that near-injustice/tragedy. He also has said of JFK’s quote, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”…”It is quaint, it’s also ášš-backwards.”
Note, the Dubya Administration was not in office when Kennedy made the comment.
Oh, and he also at worst defended and at best was blinded by a poster who said “spitting is in order” on U.S. troops because of Abu Ghraib. When caled the poster on it Craig tried to defend the guy (or else he hates the Administration so much he completely missed the point) by saying the poster was just upset with Bush, Rumsfeld, etc., when that is NOT what he said at all.
You are “tired of being called unpatriotic”. I am tired of being lumped in with so-called “conservatives” like Dee and Poe every time one of these insane people spew bile. Dee was quite insane and quite an idiot – saying Nixon was a one-term Democrat was an example – and saying such a person is “conservative” is like calling the Unabomber liberal.
Oh, and Bladestar offends everyone and gets a pass.
I am tired of being told that I “hate” women if I don’t feel the “right” to an abortion has been decreed by a Higher Power.
I am tired of being told I “hate” gays if I don’t feel gay marriage is even on the list of important things to talk about in this country.
I am tired of Christian bashing on this blog that would have been screened out long ago if you replaced the word “Christians” with “Jews”, “Blacks” or “Muslims”.
I am tired of beng lumped in with the nimrods who give PAD a hard time as “conservatives” when I have done nothing but support PAD’s work with my wallet, my mouth and my newspaper stories for years now.
I know that’s a long post, but it’s been a long time coming. I have been silent on some of these things for a while. No more.
Of course, we also have Bladestar calling America a “sham”, but he’s unique anyway.
Oh, and while I agree one can honorably dissent from or oppose the war in Iraq, I have come to the conclusion one cannot do so and then claim to “support” the troops.
This does not mean you hope our troops will come home in bodybags. No sane person would think such a thing.
But as poll after poll indicates that a vast majority of those serving support – deeply – the mission in Iraq, it is worth asking,
“How can one say they “support the troops” when one does not support a cause they overwhelmingly support?”
I can just see the replies now….”You’re the one who doesn’t support the troops because you think they should be sent into harm’s way for an unjust, ill-conceived, ill-considered and pointless mission. We, who want the war ended, are the true supporters of the troops.”
Now, that line of argument sounds wonderfully humanitarian. Doubtless, most who use it believe they’re expressing positive sentiments toward the U.S. military – and that they believe those who think otherwise are indifferent to the difficulties facing armed Americans involved in a tough struggle in Iraq.
But there is something exquisitely condescending about the attitude that members of the military need Americans here at home to save them. Every person now serving in Iraq entered the service voluntarily and as an adult.
What we have learned from recent polls is that those who have served in Iraq are the most enthusiastic about our efforts there. They aren’t seeking rescue by well-meaning stateside Americans.
No, it apears they are seeking to win this thing – and they are willing to risk a great deal to win.
For, dificult as it may be for many to understand, many people enter military service because they see something noble, something elevating, something empowering in putting it all on the line.
Achieving glory through martial means s an idea as old as cvilization itself, from Achiles battling the Trojans to Shakespeare’s Henry V telling his soldiers that al those in their beds back in England will think themselves accursed because they were not among the “band of brothers” atacking the French on St. Crispin’s Day.
Americans in Iraq are in harm’s way to make possible the transformation of that country from a totalitarian instability generator into a functioning free society. The nobility of that effort and the glory that will attach to all those who were involved in it seem self-evident to many of those who support the effort.
But those who have opposed the war from the outset seem to feel that the goal isn’t noble and that it would be best to figure out some kind of quick and cheap face-saving exit strategy at best or an appropriately humiliating defeat at worst.
They deny the nobility of the goal in Iraq and therefore they also deny the attendant nobility and glory due those who are seekng to achieve the goal. If what our soldiers, sailors, Marines and Guardsmen are doing is pointless, or even injurious to American interests, how can glory result from it?
That’s why say that those who say the war isn’t worth fighting cannot justly say they also support the troops – because they are also saying their risk and sacrifice are pointless rather than glorious.
Thank you Jerome. After reading this (and other blogs) over the last several days, I’m feeling the same way. This whole “Bush is evil” and “war over oil” is getting to the stupid level now. If it were really a war for oil, then by carpet bombing Iraq and sending in troops ONLY to the oil fields would have been the result. Take the oil fields, erect a fence and a 10 mile barrier full of land mines. But no, FREE elections were held in Iraq to help determine the leadership of the country.
Bush is evil.
Bush can’t speak.
Bush is stupid.
Bush beat Kerry.
Oh, and while I agree one can honorably dissent from or oppose the war in Iraq, I have come to the conclusion one cannot do so and then claim to “support” the troops.
Which just goes to show, again, how delusional you are.
I can support our troops while fully dámņ well knowing that they should not be dying in Iraq, that they are not actually dying for our freedom.
See? This can be rather black & white after all.
I just can never remember how to do that italicas thing…
“I disagree with you there. You’re basically taking the position that, in order to be true to the ideals of free speech, the erstwhile boycotter has to shut up.”
Not at all. When a boycott is targeting some action a sector of the public disagrees with, ad that action itself is not protected under free speech, I don’t see any conflict. But when the point of the boycott is to get someone else to essentially shut up, then there is a conflict.
It’s admittedly a fine line, and maybe I’m not expressing it clearly. Raucus protests outside a GNP rally aren’t really a boycott. The protesters just want to be heard, they don’t want to silence the GOP. Well, ok, maybe some of them do, but overall, it’s more about getting heard.
The examples we’ve seen on this Blog of people claiming to have written letters to PAD’s publishers, and calling out for others to join them in boycotting PAD’s works, simply because they find PAD’s political ideals offensive, aren’t just trying to be heard. In many cases, they don’t offer any contrasting political ideals, either. They just are trying to exert economic pressure to make PAD and his liberal leanings go away. It’s more than just a shouting match. It’s trying to eliminate your opponent by taking away his ability to provide for himself and his family.
If you truly support and uphold the ideals of free speech, then you must internalize the concept of “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it.” Then, after killing in order to preserve that right, turn around and say “Ok, now that I’ve preserved your free speech rights, I’m going to get people to stop giving you work until you stop saying those things I disagree with.”
If that’s not the height of hypocrisy, then I don’t really know what I’m talking about at all.
And don’t everyone rush all at once to agree with me on that….
“Oh, and while I agree one can honorably dissent from or oppose the war in Iraq, I have come to the conclusion one cannot do so and then claim to “support” the troops.”
So you support the use of torture? Our troops did it in Iraq at the orders of their “superiors”.
I can easily support the troops while pointing to the áššhølë who sent them to die there for NO GØÐÐÃMN GOOD REASON quite easily.
Bush is a war criminal, he’s slaughtered thousands of American troops in a pathetic sham “anti-terrorist” invasion of Iraq, because, all of Saddam’s WMDs were ready to destroy America….except Saddam didn’t have any, and didn’t have the ability to deliver them to US anyway even if he did have the WMDs…
I pity the military, many of them joined to protect their country, but instead they’re being misused and slaughtered for something that does NOTHING to protect America…
Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith, who spent his boyhood in Tampa, became a man in the Army and died outside Baghdad defending his outnumbered soldiers from an Iraqi attack, will receive America’s highest award for bravery.
President Bush will present the Medal of Honor to Smith’s wife, Birgit, and their children Jessica, 18, and David, 10, at a ceremony at the White House, possibly in March.
The official announcement will come soon, but the Pentagon called Mrs. Smith with the news Tuesday afternoon.
“We had faith he was going to get it,” Mrs. Smith said from her home in Holiday, “but the phone call was shocking. It was overwhelming. My heart was racing, and I got sweaty hands. I yelled, “Oh, yes!’ … I’m still all shaky.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/02/Tampabay/Iraq_hero_joins_hallo.shtml
Craig Ries,
‘Oh, and while agree one can honorably dissent from or oppose the war in Iraq, I have come to the conclusion that one cannot do so and then claim to ‘support’ the troops.’
“Which just goes to show again how delusional you are.”
Not really. I made a pretty thorough argument, if you bothered to read it all.
“I can support our troops while fully dámņ well knowing they should not be dying in Iraq, that they are not actually dying for our freedom.”
See, that’s where the condescension comes in. You KNOW this? You’re not just stating an opinion, but you KNOW this? Better than the men and women who are actually OVER THERE DOING THE FIGHTING?
‘Supporting’ our troops does not mean you simply don’t want them coming home in body bags. No sane Americans, or human beings, want that to happen Craig.
But if a majority of our troops believe in their mission, believe in the goal, take pride in what they are doing to better people’s lives and feel their risk is worth the reward…then, while you obviously have a right to a different opinion, but by definition you do not support the troops.
Jerome,
There is a difference between blaming this administration and blaming America. You seem to be conflating the two.
And, while I, and many others, blame this administration for this poorly conceived and planned war of theirs, we go out of our way to say we support the troops for three reasons.
1. Whether they think this is a worthwhile mission, or not, is beside the point. I do not. I support them for being in the military and their service to this country. I do not have to support the mission they are currently on. There is a difference between the troops and what they are doing. My opinion on the war has nothing to do with the people serving in the military. My opinions on this war relate entirely to the folks running things. The troops follow orders and as long as they are legal orders they will continue to follow them. I blame those giving the orders. That is how I can support the troops while not supporting the war.
2. During Vietnam, the war and the troops serving were one in the minds of many. They were mistreated when they returned. By seperating the two and specifically saying we support them, we are saying that these men and women are worthy of our respect and not scorn, even if we completly and entirely oppose this war.
3. At the start of the protests against the war, we were accused of being against the troops, too. Since there is a difference, and since words have painted liberals in a bad light, we continue to state our positions. Our words and deeds are misconstrued and twisted so we appear disloyal. Many of us love our country. We do not like the direction it is going and if you think that makes us unpatriotic, well, so be it.
Are you daft? Regardless of their courage the Iraqi’s would have been put to death under Sadaam. Bush is a bad bad man for liberating 25 mllion people? Remember that it was the combined intelligence of Russia, Brittian, and the US that said Iraq had WMD. The UN said it, the Holy Clinton said it. It was bad intelligence, not lies. Remember that Sadaam was in violation of 17 UN sanctions and the evidence now is that he was using money diverted from the food for oil program to bebuild his military. Oh woe is us, we have an evil war monger who has the backbone to oppose evil (it’s not just a word or an obsolete concept). If we can’t call butchering 100,000 helpless men, women, and children evil then we are forgetting aushwitz and are moving closer to allowing horrors like the holocaust happen all over again.
The difference is those people you cite listened to ALL the intelligence and did not invade. Bushco. listened only to the intelligence that supported what they wanted to do. This was not sold as a war of liberation. They used the old bait and switch when their ideas din’t pan out. You can hardly compare Saddam to Hitler. Hitler actively went about invading other countries and torturing those captured without letting them have any rights. Saddam was not capable of invading others. The UN sanctions were working. But Bush wanted his war and he got it.
Your right PAD the Iraqis are brave to vote. I’m glad you were able to pay that a compliment without letting people think you actually thought there was some success to efforts our government and soliders. And I like the way you were able to cut Bush at the same time. (PAD you really do come across as bitter sometimes…just think about it).