Surge or Surrender by Hero

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I usually expect better of you Finn.

First, and most importantly as it relates to my response, since when did dissent with the government mean a greenlight to a trip out of the country? Since when did anyone with an opinion need to keep quiet about it?

That’s my point exactly. Since when did not dissenting mean a trip into the military? A lot of military men and women have died so that we could have those opinions.

And I don’t think anyone should leave the country because they disagree with the government, I just wanted someone to make my point for me, because no one would listen to me otherwise.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Second, I don't think Phoenixship's point was clear. Would a person(s) send their child voluntarily to fight in THIS war? Not wars in general, not wars of defense, not a forced service somewhere due to a voluntary enlistment. Would YOU give up YOUR child to fight in THIS one; i.e., do you support the ethics/reasons to be in Iraq enough to sacrifice a child for them? I don't think it's an invalid point, however emotionally made it may be. Personally, I could say I would make that choice about many wars, but this one, not so much.

It’s not a valid argument. Whether someone wants their child to die in a war has nothing to do with whether someone believes a war is right or not. You can believe a war is right and still not want your child to die in it. But ultimately, the decision of whether your child joins the military is not necessarily yours. Because no minor can be recruited into the military unless it is his or her deciscion to do so, however few recruits are minors, anyway.

There could be certain cases in which a mother or father may believe in a war in which they try to shield their own child from it. You could call these hypothetical parents hypocrites, but that has nothing to do with the war, because parents often shield their children from things they believe or do themselves. But it strikes me as being a bit insulting to shake your finger at a concerned mother because you’ve got some ideological bent you want to push.

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:47 PM

PHOENIXSHIP

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
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. You certainly have as much or more of a choice to get the hell out, as Anthony has to join the military.

I usually expect better of you Finn.

First, and most importantly as it relates to my response, since when did dissent with the government mean a greenlight to a trip out of the country? Since when did anyone with an opinion need to keep quiet about it?

Second, I don't think Phoenixship's point was clear. Would a person(s) send their child voluntarily to fight in THIS war? Not wars in general, not wars of defense, not a forced service somewhere due to a voluntary enlistment. Would YOU give up YOUR child to fight in THIS one; i.e., do you support the ethics/reasons to be in Iraq enough to sacrifice a child for them? I don't think it's an invalid point, however emotionally made it may be.[/qoute]

Phoenixship:
Thanks for clarifying if I wasn't too clear. I was referring to this war, and specifically the "surge". Can anyone honestly see this as anything but a hail mary? It's a last-minute attempt at salvaging a legacy for one evil man - paid for with the blood of whoever dies between now and the day he is forced to give up his crusade. How would any of us feel if a loved one perished during that gap of time?

Yes, it's true... it is an emotional appeal. I wondered when someone would call me on that - guilty as charged. You've hit on what is admittedly the weakest aspect of what I said. Emotional appeals are fraught with risk.

sevenpercent:
Quote:
Personally, I could say I would make that choice about many wars, but this one, not so much.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

Phoenixship:
Also, to remind anyone, I never proposed that EVERYONE who was in favor of this "war" should be required to sign up - just those of us who are so quick to wave the flag and volunteer others to fight and die.

And as for the suggestion that we're not yet at crisis stage, anyone who thinks so is simply not paying attention. "We're a coupla county lines passed crisis stage."

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:55 PM

It's an emotionally charged artificial argument. NOBODY would deliberately sacrifice their child for any principle, at least nobody that wasn't at least a little crazy. Likewise if someone was at an age where they chose to enter the military then they would be at an age where they had their own life and make their own decisions. I know my mother didn't have much luck persuading my brother not to join.

So at it's core this is a playground argument not much better than "my dad's bigger that your dad" except in this case it's "if you believe in it so much why aren't you the one dying for it?"

But even that's an artificial argument. You don't ask "if you believe in law and order why don't you become a cop?" or "if you want someone to save your family from a fire you should join the local fire brigade." It's generally accepted in our society that we contract certain individuals to perform certain services for the rest of us. That is what the professional military is, a career like any other. He doesn't have to do the job personally to still believe it needs to be done, just like he doesnt need to be in a police cruiser to believe in law and order.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:19 PM

Quote:
But they're not arguments. Asking someone, "Well, if you like the war so much, why don't you join?" isn't an argument.

Argument or not, it IS a valid question to ask, on that point I will stand.

Also equally valid is the question "So what are you doing to stop this madness ?"

I don't see either question as irrelevant or an affront at all.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:28 PM

HKCAVALIER

I think what's at issue for the folks hanging their argument on this "would you send your kid into this mess?" gambit is their belief that something has gone wrong with the pro-surge people's empathy. The pro-surgers seem perfectly willing to believe in this disgusting, face-saving, 11th hour, presidential stunt, in spite of the mountain of bodies and trillions of dollars that point toward another innevitable conclusion to our American Iraqi adventure (if all we needed was 20,000 extra troops to win this thing, why didn't we send them in LAST YEAR?). In their desperation to reach the Finns of the world they try to bring the "reality" of the situation "home."

"Would you feel proud if your son or daughter died fighting in this current war, or would you feel disgusted and used?"

But a lot of times, the folks who most need schooling are the least available for it. In other words, if they could understand what you're trying to teach them, they wouldn't have needed the lesson in the first place.

In my experience, when people turn abusive (that is, lose their empathy) there's no talking to them until they're quite in another mood. America has been stuck in this rageful, vengeful, jingoistic mood for 6 years now. I always thought it would come to an end. After Afghanistan. After Shock and Awe. After Abu Ghraib. After Fallujah. After Iraq?

What I'm certain of is that it will come to an end. The bloodthirsty rage will end. Enough people will have died. And then we will find the strength to put down our swords and get on with the really hard work of living with our mistakes and with our moral failings.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:33 PM

It’s not strength that will allow us do that. The easy option has always been to give up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:38 PM

HKCAVALIER

Case in point.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:15 PM

Yawn...Finn,

give up?

Give up on what? this isn't the war we went in to fight. We were lied to, and I personally bought the lie. Now I find out that our mission wasn't what I threw my support behind. that's not giving up...that's asserting control as citizens over our rogue government. To do otherwise would be to give up.

We're there for the wrong reasons...it took lies to get us there...we are doing more harm than good there...I'm done with the "well we're there now" argument, and "we can't be quitters" bullshit.

At least put the argument in the right context. That of, "we fucked up over there and leaving might not be the best way to handle things."

That kind of candor could go a long way towards finding an actual solution. I don't know what we should do at this point, but I surely know we should stop lying to ourselves about it

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:25 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

I don't see why we can't just compromise Hero.

Why can't we just mind our own f

ing business and become an isolationist country, and retain the right to bear arms and smoke a f

ing cigarette when we feel like it?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
That kind of candor could go a long way towards finding an actual solution. I don't know what we should do at this point, but I surely know we should stop lying to ourselves about it

You want candor? Remember AnthonyT, the guy you were just trying to paint as a hypocrite because he wasn’t towing your line? He’s on your side! He’s opposed to the war. He wants to leave Iraq. But unlike you, he actually had intelligent arguments and an actual interest in discussion. You don’t. You don’t have a clue what I think, and you wouldn’t listen to me if I told you. What you and Pheonix and HK have is ad hominem. If someone disagrees with you, then their hypocrites or they hate their children or they don’t have any empathy, i.e. their “evil.” How the hell does that go anywhere towards finding a solution?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 5:51 PM

You're wrong about whether I would listen to you. I would. Every once in a while my political and world beliefs really do come under crisis. Every once in a while I do discover that I was in fact wrong as I see it now. I really do listen to what you have to say, and care more than you know.

But how does leaving your post at "give up" further any discussion? That's a soundbyte, and one that is meant to charactarize all of us who wish to end the war.

Where was I guilty of the ad hominem you suggest? I really do wish to watch those sorts of things.

I also don't know where I was painting anthonyt as a hypocrite, except in one post where I also indicated that yes, I might be a hypocrite also.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

The short history of the US in Iraq has been one of continuous retrenchment. First it was just some relatives over in Tikrit, then a few dead-enders in Mosul, then foreign fighters in Fallujah. But since then the military declared the entire Anbar province a lost cause.

Now the US is fighting to secure it's last stronghold - Baghdad.

Baghdad ??? !!!

What should the US do to reverse this stunning loss?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
But how does leaving your post at "give up" further any discussion? That's a soundbyte, and one that is meant to charactarize all of us who wish to end the war.

I’m not going to get into all of your points, the ad hominem and sophomoric arguments which are specifically designed as red herrings are clearly presented in this thread and many people including AnthonyT, Fletch2 and myself have pointed them out. You don’t need me to review them for you. But as for my response to HK, that’s a valid question and the answer is that it isn’t supposed to further any discussion. HK’s position is that I’m evil (lacking empathy) if I don’t agree with him. And I’m not going to argue on that puerile level, so my response to him was sufficiently curt. But it was true. It is easier to give up, after all giving up ends the war, right? Well, not really, it just ends it for Americans. The “rageful, vengeful, jingoistic” violence will continue magnified many times, but it will be easier to put out of sight and mind for most Americans, and perhaps some people will sleep better, but I will not. Maybe you and HK can’t understand my point of view, which makes me reluctant to spend too much time presenting it to you, but I don’t want another Khmer Rouge, because America gave up. And maybe that’s inevitable or maybe Iraq will surprise us all and stabilize after we’re gone, I don’t know but I want us to try and make sure.

Edited to add: After eating a hotpocket and reviewing my last two post here, I wonder if I haven’t been overly pointed in my language? I think HK ticked me off with his implication that I’m evil, and I lost it at Righteous. Anyway, just imagine that I’m using more measured language.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What should the US do to reverse this stunning loss?

First of all, it is helpful to understand that a counterinsurgency is basically a kind of entrenchment, and it is often a long commitment. Secondly, the insurgency is almost completely located around Baghdad. We’re securing Baghdad because that’s where the violence is, not because it’s our last stronghold. Before you can reverse a “stunning loss” you first have to identify that such a thing exists. The nature of the war in Iraq is a counterinsurgency in Baghdad. There’s no stunning loss, that’s just what the war is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

The only place going well is nothern Kurish Iraq. And that is being destabilized by the influx of Sunni refugees. The US military has given up the entire Anbar province. They say there is nothing that can be done to 'win' that part of the country. The British, who formerly had an easier time in the south have given that up as well to entrenched militias..

Baghdad has become a focus not because the rest of the country is going so well, but because it is literally the only place left the US (and Britain) hasn't given up on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 5:45 AM

The war in Iraq is all about Baghdad, because that's where the violence is. I don’t think your characterization of it fair. Anbar province is a big dessert with huge international borders that will probably always be difficult to police. But the problem is Baghdad. You claim that Baghdad is our “last stronghold,” but in reality most of the war occurs there, so it’s hardly a stronghold much less our last. And it’s also critical to maintaining control in Iraq. If Baghdad falls, so does the country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 6:52 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

In all fairness, I don't think that you can control a country by controlling a single city. I don't think that the 'enemy' is entirely located in a single city. I think that most of the fighting happens in baghdad because that's where most of THEIR enemy is.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The short history of the US in Iraq has been one of continuous retrenchment. First it was just some relatives over in Tikrit, then a few dead-enders in Mosul, then foreign fighters in Fallujah. But since then the military declared the entire Anbar province a lost cause. Now the US is fighting to secure it's last stronghold - Baghdad.
Baghdad ??? !!!
What should the US do to reverse this stunning loss?

Do what Bush is doing- redefine the objectives and "enemy" so that a loss is a success and the enemy becomes our ally.

Which is in all likelihood the better course. Bush& Co really stepped in it when they defined Sunnis as "the enemy" and cast their lot with the religious, Iran-oriented, vengeful majority Shiites. (The Kurds are more or less not in the picture.)

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
First of all, it is helpful to understand that a counterinsurgency is basically a kind of entrenchment,

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:
and it is often a long commitment.

Yes

Quote:
Secondly, the insurgency is almost completely located around Baghdad.

Not true. "The insurgency" is alive and thriving in Anbar Province according to this Jan 15 article

Quote:
According to counter-insurgency experts, many young insurgent recruits were trained in six towns in Anbar: al-Qaim, Haditha, Anah, Hit, Fallujah and Ramadi. As a result, these five towns have witnessed particularly heavy clashes resulting in the deaths of hundreds of local citizens and the destruction of thousands of shops, schools, houses and government buildings.

"Today, the situation is spiralling out of control with the return of insurgents and the increase in the number of those displaced as a result of sectarian violence," said Muhammad Rabia'a, media officer for Anbar province council in Ramadi, some 115km west of the capital, Baghdad

www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_49344.shtml

You can't control a nation from a single city and I don't think that is the intent. The problem in Iraq is power struggles. Where one group clearly dominates, there is no problem. But Baghdad is a very mixed city.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:10 AM

STORYMARK

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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:
Blind obedience, or get the hell out? The Founding Fathers would spit in your face for that

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.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:24 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:25 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 4:54 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:39 PM

Quote:
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".

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.

Quote:
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.

Yes. It was facetious. Something I thought I had made clear, but thank you for point it out again.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:05 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:01 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:58 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:29 AM

Quote:
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.

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.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:15 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So sayeth King George. God save the King.

King George wasn't that bad

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"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"

Speaking of sophomoric straw man arguments...

There are two problems with your vitriol.

1) Nobody has voted to send anyone's kids into combat. Some people would like to deploy adults who have volounteered for military service into a warzone.

2) A society can not function unless people are prepared to vote to send other people to do jobs that they themselves are unable or unwilling to do.

The fact that you are not a Part Time Garbage Man, Police Officer, and Firefighter means that you are as much a Hypocrite as those you rail against.

It gets worse. Not all Police Officers are Bomb Disposal experts, yet they probably all believe in the virtues of Bomb Disposal, and would sit idly by (perhaps even offer support!) while other people's kids are sent to disarm bombs. The Hypocrites! Why aren't they taking courses in Bomb Disposal and suiting up in Bomb Suits themselves? Arseholes!

And you, Frem... I BET YOU SUPPORT THE BLOODY FIRE DEPARTMENT! YOU SCUM!

Why isn't it you running into all the burning buildings, Frem? My Cousin is a Firefighter, Frem. WHY DO YOU WANT MY COUSIN TO DIE?!

Shame on you, Frem! Go to hell, you cold, calculating Hypoctitical Bastard!

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
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...

That's not what's being said though. Look back, I completely agreed with the point that we are seeing disproportionate sacrifices in this war. We aren't selling war bonds, we're not even having organises drives to get materal to comfort the troops let alone paying in higher taxes the cost of running the war. If that was his point he'd have my complete agreement. Since it isn't he doesn't.

Quote:

How the hell do you sleep at night ?

With a machine to help me breathe. You?

Quote:

So, it's not ok to send your OWN kids, but perfectly fine to send OTHER PEOPLES ?
To send MINE ?

No, what's being said is that to be "hard core," to be allowed any opinion you, Fremdfirma must be willing to put your kids lives on the line for it. Your opinion on the south, Lincoln, reconstruction? Retoric, worthless because you obviously don't really believe in it unless you are willing to sacrifice little Frem.

That's fanatic thinking. That's the kind of logic that says a real Muslim mother should be proud of her suicide bomber son because he proved he was a true Muslim dying for Jihad.

Quote:

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.

Right now nobody is sending anybody that didn't choose to place themselves in a possition to be sent. My little brother is a fireman. If your house caught fire and little Frem was trapped upstairs you'd probably want my brother to go into that house and try to rescue little Frem, because you know, that's his job. You love lil Frem you want to save her, I love my brother and want to keep him safe. I think we're probably both normal folks in wanting that. My baby brother, being who he is, will do whatever he can to save your kid. I didn't send him in there, you can't blame or praise me for that, he chose to do it because that's the kind of guy he is and the job he chose to do.

We have a professional military, nobody was drafted, nobody was press ganged off the street. Are there some in it that saw it as a short cut to college and didn't think they would have to actually fight? Possibly, but the intent of a military force is to fight an enemy and when you sign up to join it that's what you signed up to do just like firemen sign up to fight fires and cops to uphold the law.

If your house is on fire, if little Frem is screaming in a window and my little brother shows up with his crew you reasonably expect my brother to help. You have no problem potentially sacrificing him for your home and loved ones. I don't immediately think you are a heartless monster for wanting my bro to put his life on the line in that situation. I don't demand that the price for expecting your fire to be fought is that you join the brigade or force your child to. My brother is a professional and a hero in my eyes, I let him know that.

Quote:

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

Why don't you tell me what you really think?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:23 AM

duplicate

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:42 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

In Frem's world, this country of ~300 million people contains a 1% elite who are allowed to have an opinion about war. This elite consists of the less than 3 million active duty military personnel serving in the US Armed Forces.

Frem himself is not one of those people. While he may have had the balls to risk his ass for an opinion in the past, he is no longer on active duty. So, since he is no longer personally taking the risks, he no longer gets a vote.

Frem does not get to have an opinion about when/if a burning building is put out by Firefighters. If he is not an actively serving Firefighter, he is not allowed an opinion. Only Firefighters are allowed to have any thoughts on the matter.

Frem does not get to have any opinions about crime, until and unless he straps on a badge. Only police officers can have such opinions.

In Frem's world, there are a hundred thousand voting blocks. Each of these voting blocks gets to form opinions only about jobs and situations that they are physically, personally involved in.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 8:19 AM

HKCAVALIER

Finn,

I owe you an apology. My last post here was really kind of a mish-mash of a whole bunch of ideas that got crammed together into a too short post. I was having a whole crowd of thoughts and I felt I had some insight into some folk's obsession with a question which amounts to nothing more than emotional blackmail. I was trying to say that if you feel the need to resort to that kind of thing, and we all do from time to time, whatever you're trying to say won't get heard because the gulf between you and the people you're arguing with is too wide.

At the same time I was feeling like you and the other pro-surge folks were completely off your rockers for backing the thing. So the two issues (dumb-ass inflamatory argumentation, my own dismay over communication with the folks who support the surge) got mixed up and I ended up pretty much siding with the folks I was trying to critique. I'm no stranger to self-critique or to paradox so as I wrote the post it seemed reasonable enough to me. My bad.

I'm sorry for not taking the time to make myself clearer. I don't think you're evil by any means, but I do believe that you are gravely, gravely mistaken about our prospects in this war and have been from the get-go. As things just get worse and worse over there, I find your continued support of the project dismaying 'cause I know you to be a well informed and intelligent person. That the surge has gotten any traction at all in Congress and the nation brings my dismay and outrage over the whole stinking war to new heights. I believe the surge to be the latest in a long line of dispicable face-saving stunts perpetrated by this White House, one which our soldiers will pay for dearly. Honestly, it makes me a little crazy to contemplate it and I get a little mixed up about the whole thing sometimes. I see other anti-surge people getting mixed up and I can empathize.

But getting back to the rather more trivial issue at hand: I think this question "Would you send your kids?" Is a crappy, rhetorical, irrelevant, passive-aggressive attack. Americans obviously don't mind electing draft-dodgers into the White House. Not because Americans suck and lack courage or whatever, but because Americans are rightly, obviously, vastly ambivalent about warfare.

"Oh, no!" the b.s. questioner exclaims, "Ambivalence is the Devil and if your behavior can be seen to be inconsistent from any angle I can devise, you and everyone like you is a hypocrite!"

Inconsistency is not a crime, nor is ambivalence, particularly when it comes to huge issues like war.

Furthermore, I'd like to call b.s. on the over-the-top macho undercurrent of the question, the implication that Anthony "isn't a man" or some such crap for feeling too out of shape to be a soldier. Goddamn, people, let up, nobody's perfect, not even Frem.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:02 AM

One of the reasons you ask questions of public figures is because you want to know who you are voting for or who is representing you in office.

So I guess it does speak volumes that I would like to know those answers.

I absolutely agree with the both of you that the question has been used badly in the past...is still often used badly...

but the answer can be telling. I don't like the idea of having our soldiers sent into a conflict by people who were unwilling to serve themselves for a war they believed in..and that would go for Clinton as well. I'm not sure what his thoughts are on the vietnam war, but I know he didn't serve. I think an answer from him on that question would be more than warranted. It isn't the end all be all. It isn't any kind of coup-de-gras. But it's important to know.

When it's asked of people who aren't in office, I think HKCavalier is right, it's out of trying to get at some common thread with the person we are talking to...to get them to see what we don't think they see. Is the war worth the cost or risk of their son's and daughters? If they can not say yes to that, than maybe they should reevalute whether its worth the sons and daughters of their neighbors. That doesn't mean the people we're talking to don't see, but there is an obvious disconnect between us and them...these types of questions are in your opinion inflamatory, but in my opinion are an attempt at conveying something and of trying to understand.

I can't speak for everybody who uses the question, but you can't speak for me and why I think its an important one, though you certainly have taken the liberty to do so.

You also mischaracterize me pretty blatantly when you paint me as an elitist who thinks that there are different standards for different stations. I even said at one point that anthonyt's later post may be a valid answer to the question. that it's an important question doesn't mean that there's a right answer and a wrong answer.

Also,

You can believe in law and order and not be a cop, sure. Until you find an example of the closest thing to the comparison to servicemen who have no say in where and how long they are deployed, which has gone well and beyond what they sigened up for, you don't have an equivolent metaphor though.

the point is you are placing this burden on these soldiers, and up to the point where they signed up and did their time, that was a burden that they themselves took on, but it's gone way beyond that now. So fuck yes, it's a valid question. One that everybody should ask of themselves anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:23 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes. It was facetious. Something I thought I had made clear, but thank you for point it out again.

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.

-- Cicero

Appologies for my knee-jerk reaction. I can take things a bit literally at times.

"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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Until you find an example of the closest thing to the comparison to servicemen who have no say in where and how long they are deployed, which has gone well and beyond what they sigened up for, you don't have an equivolent metaphor though.

Now you're trying to change the subject. That's a question of degree, not principle. A lot of people in crisis situations are expected to work far longer than they are contracted to. I don't disagree that the military is being misused but to suggest that I can't use cops of firemen as comparable examples because of the extra effort the military is expected to put in is plain evasion.

Still I commend you, folks on both sides of the issue think your question is BS. It's nice to see that there are still some things on which we can all agree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:43 AM

SHINYED

Blah blah blah, and more blah blah blah....

Just get the troops home asap!

Get them out of the middle of that religious civil war...bring them all home now.

There is absolutley NO REASON to stay any longer.

We've done a noble thing....liberated a country from a ruthless mass-murdering tyrant, and given them an opportunity for freedom & democracy, 3 elections for a new governement, trained their police & military....BUT Iraqis don't want what we've tried to give...they just wanna fucking kill eachother and we have no business being there anymore.....and NO I really don't care if Iran attacks Iraq..not one iota..in fact maybe that would force the UN & Europe to do something... for once.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:47 PM

Apparently there's been a reading comprehension failure here.

Quote:
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.

An opinion is just that, an opinion.

Quote:
But when you vote to loot my pocket and my family for it

Different story, at that point - that's you, robbing me, is how I see it.

Doesn't look like anyone's gonna be reasonable, and it sure doesn't look like folks are going to re-examine sending others to die for something they only vaguely support in a halfass fashion, so screw it, my point is completely lost on folk it seems, guess that's a big part of why this mess continues.

And yes, if I support something so wholeheartedly as to strongly believe in it, I DO put forth on it - case in point, folks too drunk to drive.

Most cab companies have a seasonal program where they take a loss for PR value by running home drunks for free during new years, but the rest of the year yer pretty much out of luck.

I started offering said service year-round, it's not that much of a bite to my pocket all things considered and I feel better knowing these fools are NOT on the road, and cleaning vomit off the backseat is a helluva lot better than scraping some poor sodder and his victims off the asphalt, in my opinion.

Certain bars started putting up a kitty to pay me back for the service, which seems to be substantially contributed to by a lot of shall we say, repeat customers thereof, and so I don't lose out much if at all anymore, and in the end you have less folk climbing behind the wheel when they shouldn't be, which is a good thing, and one I believed in.

If imma jackass for asking folk put up an equal share for something they vote to have stolen from me, then imma jackass, so be it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:59 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Frem,

I doubt there's any votes that say, "I vote to take money from Frem and to sacrifice his first born."

Rather it's more likely everyone gets to pay money, and everyone who volounteers for military service is at risk...

so how is your share unequal? How are you putting up more than anyone else?

I don't see your logic even one iota.

As for your drunk driving intervention, congratulations. That is a good and wholesome act.

That doesn't begin to make me believe that you back every vote you make with personal, physical involvement. Unless you hardly ever vote? That's possible.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:12 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

OMG how did this happen?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I got a three-peat.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Maybe the question is better asked as - do you support the war enough to bring back the draft?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:07 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Maybe the question is better asked as - do you support the war enough to bring back the draft?

That is a MUCH better question.

Of course, those who have been paying attention know that I wish to end this fiasco as soon as possible.

My only excitement about the recent Bush proposal is that it was attached to an expectation of withdrawal before next year.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Maybe the question is better asked as - do you support the war enough to bring back the draft?

I'm against it. It takes time to set up a draft, select people, tran, equip and deploy them and that's just to get your most basic "point a gun in the right direction" infantry grunt.

If the government institutes a draft it means either they think the war will run at least another 2 years or they will need a LOT more men fairly soon. Otherwise the cost and disruption of the program doesn't make sense over just recruiting more folks into the military through inducements. I'm not sure anybody really want to be there more than another 2 years or wants large numbers of hastily prepared and rudementarily equiped troops thrown into the fray.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 19, 2007 2:52 AM

Rue has the better question sure...

Look, i'm snippy about this cause i've buried friends over it, ok?

Little knew what he was getting into, and nobody who defuses or disables dud ordinance for a living has any illusions about what'll eventually happen to em, but as for the rest - how do you explain to the kids mother when he signed up to get out of the hood and into college, and he comes back in a box, and for what ?

How do you explain that to the grieving parent of a friend ?
When it's bought us as a people essentially nothing but risk, debt and misery ?

And then to hear someone evidence support for it, but a distinct unwillingness to put anything on the line for it, how exactly do you think imma take it ?

As a general rule I tend not to ask folk to do anything for me that I would not do if the situation demanded it, is that so wrong then ?

And it's one thing to volunteer for service, and another to be held past your term and repeatedly stoplossed till your employer eliminates your position, your house is foreclosed and your wife bails - talk to some of these guys, especially the older ones who they dredged up from the IRR program, which was meant as a last-ditch defensive concept, it's sadly too common - we're askin a lot even of the ones who do come back at least half-sane and in one piece.

Quote:
That doesn't begin to make me believe that you back every vote you make with personal, physical involvement.

You didn't see the brawl around here over jackin my property taxes to build an un-needed new school in someone else's district...
They wanted a 'blank check' for their contractor buddies to sponge on, and no way in hell does a town with a population of less than a thousand need a school with EIGHT tennis courts no-thank-you.

We shot that proposal to bits, and then city council whines about taxpayers not being 'educated' enough to vote intelligently (i.e. how they wanted!) and wants to spend more tax dollars on a propaganda campaign to 'educate' us before the slap this idocy back on the ballot ?

To quote Book - "Not.Gonna.Happen."

If I put a vote to it, if I care that much, yeah, I'll generally do somethin about it - went down to Woodward to a meeting and fronted some bills out of pocket for Dean (yeah, I voted for him, afore he sold out to the DNC) and backed up Jenny Granholm pretty solid - and would love to see that useless criminal Cox right straight out of this state on a rail.

And of course, Firefly, right ?

Maybe i'm strange, maybe a lot so, but if I believe in something, yeah, i tend to back it up such as is possible, so forgive me if i don't really understand folks who don't.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 19, 2007 5:54 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Well, Frem,

I guess you're just a superior human being.

Me? I believe in a lot of things, but only physically involve myself in a few.

I've voted on a myriad of issues, but I've never had the balls to 'brawl' anyone over my vote, much less to 'shoot' their bills. I never did more than place a ballot in a box. I also never personally fronted all of the money a political candidate needed to enact bills.

I *have* had co-workers die and get f-up on the job, but I never had to talk to little Johnny and explain why dad didn't come home.

Hell, I never even drove a drunk home who wasn't my friend.

I always thought I could have an opinion, even vote, without getting my ass personally involved in the issue in question. I thought I could do that and still be a man. Even a good man.

But now I realize I'm hypocritical scum that deserves to weep while Frem plays a humbling tune on the virtiola.

*sets the bar on high, and engraves it 'Frem'*

Behold, the bar upon which humanity is judged.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 19, 2007 9:09 AM