Surge or Surrender
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 18 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If you don’t agree with this countries decision to go to war, then leave. If you don’t like this government, then go find a country with a government you do agree with, but stop bitching about it.
That attitude is an insult to the ideals this coutry was built upon.
Blind obedience, or get the hell out? The Founding Fathers would spit in your face for that.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is it too pointed to notice that Hero has slunk away since he "forgot" al Qaida as the number one enemy in Iraq? Is it too much to hope that he may wake up one day and realize that he's letting people do his thinking for him... to the point where he can literally forget one "crisis" (al Qaida) in favor of another (Iran/ Syria) within the space of one month and some propaganda?
Quote:Finn was being facetious to draw a parallel between "If you support the war join the army" and "if you disagree with policy get the hell out". Not sure I buy that it's an exact parallel (needs more thought) but that was his intent.
Blind obedience, or get the hell out? The Founding Fathers would spit in your face for that
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
since it was kind of brought back up, rereferencing finn's comment, I'll tackle the question of "why haven't you signed up" again.
I'm not really of the mind that the question is rhetorical...i mean just asking the question isn't winning the argument...nor is it an ad hominem attack.
It's a question that should be asked because the answer is relevant to the people who we have running our government. When we ask of Cheney "if you believed in the vietenam war, why didn't you serve?" that's not a spike the ball touchdown moment, and should not be used as such.
It's not the question, but his answers that are enlightening.
I do believe the question could be answered well. I don't think athonyt's example of being "out of shape and lazy" were good answers, because they beg the question, "if you believe in this country and this war then shouldn't you get in shape and stop being lazy and support the troops already?" those are things you are in direct control of after all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He doesn't need to reply because it's a stupid equivalence has as been mentioned by numberous people before.
To illistrate the point. Thomas Jefferson probably believed in the Revolutionary War, after all he was one of the folks that wrote that nice "Declaration of Independence" thing. By your reconing he should have been one of the first to collect a musket and charge down those Redcoats? As it was he spent his time in Virginia building his political career.
But at 33 he was probably a little too old at that time so let's say we give him a pass.
So lets look at James Madison, Father of the Constitution, who was 25 at the time about the same age as the kids in Iraq. Created the bill of rights, so definately a believer... bet he was charging those baracades..... hummm seems he was in Virginia too.
So even back way back in the birth of the nation nobody seems to have made the equivalence that just because you believe in the principle of a war you are obligated to fight in it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello all,
I'll revisit this one:
"Why don't you join the military?"
There's a lot of things I believe in that I don't support with anything more than words and money.
Fire control, disease control, and crime control among them.
I don't think I'd make a good fire man.
I don't think I'd make a good doctor.
I don't think I'd make a good police dept employee. (Actually tried that one.)
I don't think I'd make a good soldier.
It's not in me, man. I'm sorry if you see that as some kind of failing. I do things I think I can do well.
In an ideal world, I'd be a military policeman with emergency medical traning and a part-time civilian job as a firefighter.
I live in the real world. In the real world, I love our troops, I hate this war, and I work for a Bank.
Maybe YOU actually DO all the jobs that you are in favor of. Not me, man. Not me.
To quote Clint Eastwood, "A man's got to know his limitations."
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you’re confusing a counterinsurgency with an insurgency. The counterinsurgency does not define the hostile forces, in this case. Clearly an insurgency however is not anything that could be described as an entrenchment; it is always offensive.
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is most definitely NOT true. If the hostile forces- however defined- entrench, that actually makes things easier because you can conquer territory decisively. But the biggest problem that our armed forces have is that the warring forces have been very mobile- "melting away" in the face of force only to return when force is w/drawn. As one of the generals said "willing to trade space for time".
Quote:Yes. It was facetious. Something I thought I had made clear, but thank you for point it out again.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn was being facetious to draw a parallel between "If you support the war join the army" and "if you disagree with policy get the hell out". Not sure I buy that it's an exact parallel (needs more thought) but that was his intent.
I’ve been accused of lacking empathy for American servicemen and told that the founding fathers would spit in my face, evidently, my own counterinsurgency has failed.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think you're use of jefferson or madison is an equivolence either, though I'll refrain from words like stupid...etc. They did sign their names to the declaration of independance...they did risk their lives. They did probably think they were best serving the indepencance where they were. See, that would be a good answer.
The fact is Cheney did answer. At one point he said he had "other priorities" and at another point he said "I would have been happy to serve had I been called." Of course he had been called 5 times previously. See, that's what's telling about the question.
and just to add, because I just read Anthonyt's last post, that truly might be an acceptable answer to the question. I'm not sure how i'd feel about it coming out of Cheney's mouth but it's certainly better than what he did say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The implication of your question, even if you don't come out and say it, is that if you support a war and do not fight in it you're a hypocrite. It's one of those snide, condeming questions like "when did you stop beating your wife?" You keep insisting that it's a legitimate question to which I will keep answering that if it is then it's a stupid one. It suggests that you can only express an opinion about a subject if you are willing to place your life and liberty or that of someone else on the line for it. I’m sorry but that's the rational of the fanatic. It's what makes ideas like "save a baby -- shoot an abortion doctor" possible.
I believe in law and order, I am not a cop. Does that make me a hypocrite? If I saw man acting strangely on my street I would dial 911 and have a professional look into it, not takeout a gun and do it myself. By your dubious logic I'm obviously not committed enough on the law and order question because I'm not taking personal risk, yet in most jurisdictions making the 911 call makes me a "responsible citizen" and using a gun to confront a stranger on the street makes me a “vigilante"
As to the Declaration, your argument works for Jefferson because he did indeed sign it, but Madison did not. So what was his excuse? Was he a hypocrite, which is where the logic of your argument would take us, or did he not make the same fanatical equivalence that you seem to be making? I also find it interesting that for the plebes the test of hypocrisy is apparently "do you believe in this principle enough to sacrifice your CHILD for it” but for important folk an “important job” is enough to avoid having to take up arms personally.
Nice to see you stand up for the little guy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Madison was an idealistic twit who didn't think we needed the bill of rights, specifically the second amendment, because "no one would ever dare.." etc etc.
His influance set us up for the horror that was Lincoln and the Civil war.
Don't even get me started flaming on him, Patrick Henry did a fine job of roasting him every chance he got, and history has proven Mr. Henry correct on every single point between them.
That being said...
It *IS* a legitimate question - if you are supporting a war, willing to send other people to their deaths, but unwilling to *materially* support it if YOU have to put forth any effort, if YOU have to take any risks...
How the hell do you sleep at night ?
The only reason folk are ducking it and calling it a stupid question is that they are having some conflict of conscience in there because they don't have any decent answers to the question.
And by the way, save the strawman arguments for someone who cares.
While some folk may have put forth the concept of putting yourself or your kids in this war, to which the reaction has been pretty nasty, let's turn that one around a bit then, for them that support this madness.
So, it's not ok to send your OWN kids, but perfectly fine to send OTHER PEOPLES ?
To send MINE ?
Think real hard about what you are saying.
You're saying "No, I wouldn't send MY kid, but I'll sure as hell vote to send YOURS."
Gee, real nice of you, thanks.
I've been nice, I've been reasonable, but on this completely asinine point, that's about to not happen.
Sure, have your opinion, that's all you, and of no concern to me, if you feel it's a good idea, what have you, who am I to say different, sure.
But when you vote to loot my pocket and my family for it, it is at that point I want YOU to put an equal ante on the table, or face some well deserved scorn and vitriol for being hypocritical, thieving, murderous scum.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Precisely. It’s a sophomoric question designed to dismiss other people’s opinion by attacking their character, not further the discussion. Doesn’t make any difference whether it’s used against Cheney or not, although the idea that the legitimacy of question is defined by whether it can be used to attack a public figure speaks volumes as to its intent.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The implication of your question, even if you don't come out and say it, is that if you support a war and do not fight in it you're a hypocrite. It's one of those snide, condeming questions like "when did you stop beating your wife?" You keep insisting that it's a legitimate question to which I will keep answering that if it is then it's a stupid one. It suggests that you can only express an opinion about a subject if you are willing to place your life and liberty or that of someone else on the line for it. I’m sorry but that's the rational of the fanatic. It's what makes ideas like "save a baby -- shoot an abortion doctor" possible.
Do you believe in feeding starving people in Africa? Well, if you did, then you would be in Africa feeding starving people. Since you’re not, you’re obviously a callous twit and nothing you have to say about Africa, vis-à-vis starving people is worth listening to.
Do you believe in fighting crime? Well, if you did you would be a cop? Since you’re not a cop, you’re obvious a callous twit because you want to see old women mugged, and you’re not worth listening too.
Essentially, an infinite number of such questions could be posed, which leads us to a real problem since none of us can do everything that is required in order to meet the criteria requisite in these questions in order to have an opinion.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME