-= The Luxury of Protest =- -= The Poverty of Knowledge =- -= and mice =-

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: Soybomb

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: Soybomb
Yeah its a good thing Sketcher because now his Republican Guard is no more....wait a minute....they're still there and we'll probably kill just as many civillians as they will. Seriously at what point in time do you believe we have to assume the people want their government overthrown? Is there a large uprising fighting against his tyrrany?

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. -Voltaire"

This is your Sig is it not Soybomb?... defend, to the death, eh?... Well, at least you'd die for something.

It is indeed, is Iraq squelching your freedom of speech? Mine seems to be alive and kicking despite evil Saddam. For that matter all my presonal freedoms are intact, although I'm worried about new and coming legislation from our own government. Almost sounds like you're glorifying death. You may think to die battling is heroic or patriotic, but its a worthless death if its not for a just cause and at the moment I certainly don't feel Iraq is a just cause. If I've misunderstood what you were trying to say then in relation to my sig please let me know.

Yeah, I think perhaps we've miscommunicated some intention between us. My reference to your Sig is to note that you'd espouse fighting to the death for someone else's right to speak, which to me means that you value the right to expressing an opinion even if the opinion is contrary to your own. If that is true, then to misunderstand the plight of the Iraqi people by conveying on us what you assume to be the misplaced responsibility of determining when and if they should be relieved of Saddam is a different argument altogether. Iraqi's are put to death for expressing contrary views to Saddam's dictatorship. Do not base their plight on a valuation of how much you "hear" the people speaking out - for they cannot. To do so is death.

I respect your viewpoint that you do not believe our attention towards Iraq is a just cause. I do not necessarily agree with you, but your thinking isn't entirely without justification. But this thread isn't about proving war right or wrong or our involvement in Iraq right or wrong. I will say however, that I support our attention towards Iraq but I do not claim to understand all of the political implications this involvement brings.

My intention is not to glorify death. Death for a worthy cause? A cause I would say is worthy, you would not. A cause you would say is worthy, I might not. To die for one's own personal conviction is worthy in each of our own minds. But when that death for one's conviction kills others, the validity of our sensibilities is questioned and at the heart of the matter is whether or not your conviction is based on an individual small world perception or a more encompassing perspective of a greater freedom.

I posted, not to argue the morals of war but to encourage people to think beyond the witty anti-war slogans and picket lines. Too often those who are yelling the loudest about freedom from oppression and freedom of speech are those are are not willing to put their lives on the line for it. Glorified? No. Necessary? At times.

It's true that those who have the loudest voices regarding the Anti War crowd are mostly talking Bullsh!t. This it unfortunate because it hampers any meanful discussions that is necessary to make an informed decision regarding this issue. Frankly I think there are 2 different camps in the Anti War Group. Those who resort to the BS "Oil For War" rhetoric and those who question the wisdom of going it alone against Hussien. The latter group understands the need to rid the world of Hussien, just not at the expense of stability in the region. This isn't to say the latter is against this Administration and won't support the action once it commences because I believe they will.

 

[Moonbeam]

If my country needed me, I would go with the first wave.
---------------------

Who defines 'need'?

I for one am pretty sure that, contrayt to Red's opinion, Saddam had been thoroughly confined. He has had most of his weapons destroyed, he's been kicked out of Kuwait, he can't even fly over 2/3rds of his country. Thew shelf life of his weapons are generally past expiration dates, etc. The Isralis destroyed his nuclear program against world protest and they haven't raised a finger. If THEY thought he was a threat you can bet your ass they would take that threat out. NO? He is not a direst danger to the US, whereas N Korea is threatening to use nuclear weapons and we have 37,000 troups right there in easy reach of their REAL WMD, missles and nukes. What we have in Iraq is a geopolitical plan to tame the area and make it safe for the new style American Imperialism and prevent any possible militaty alternative power to Israel, plus there's all that oil. These are not the reasons we are supposed to get American Soldiers killed. Our military is supposed to be for national defense which Iraq does not threaten. I have no problem with those who support the military or are willing to die to defend their country. My problem is that as a citizen of that country it is my duty not to allow my government to waste the lives of such people doing something ulterior and devious, having nothing to do wit5h our real defense, but fabricated to look that way to support idiological-religious goals, i.e. a New American Vision from the right from a President who lost the election.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn: It's true that those who have the loudest voices regarding the Anti War crowd are mostly talking Bullsh!t. This it unfortunate because it hampers any meanful discussions that is necessary to make an informed decision regarding this issue. Frankly I think there are 2 different camps in the Anti War Group. Those who resort to the BS "Oil For War" rhetoric and those who question the wisdom of going it alone against Hussien. The latter group understands the need to rid the world of Hussien, just not at the expense of stability in the region. This isn't to say the latter is against this Administration and won't support the action once it commences because I believe they will.

True enough Red Dawn. There is much value in what you just said.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If my country needed me, I would go with the first wave.
---------------------

Who defines 'need'?

I for one am pretty sure that, contrayt to Red's opinion, Saddam had been thoroughly confined. He has had most of his weapons destroyed, he's been kicked out of Kuwait, he can't even fly over 2/3rds of his country. Thew shelf life of his weapons are generally past expiration dates, etc. The Isralis destroyed his nuclear program against world protest and they haven't raised a finger. If THEY thought he was a threat you can bet your ass they would take that threat out. NO? He is not a direst danger to the US, whereas N Korea is threatening to use nuclear weapons and we have 37,000 troups right there in easy reach of their REAL WMD, missles and nukes. What we have in Iraq is a geopolitical plan to tame the area and make it safe for the new style American Imperialism and prevent any possible militaty alternative power to Israel, plus there's all that oil. These are not the reasons we are supposed to get American Soldiers killed. Our military is supposed to be for national defense which Iraq does not threaten. I have no problem with those who support the military or are willing to die to defend their country. My problem is that as a citizen of that country it is my duty not to allow my government to waste the lives of such people doing something ulterior and devious, having nothing to do wit5h our real defense, but fabricated to look that way to support idiological-religious goals, i.e. a New American Vision from the right from a President who lost the election.

1. Your being "pretty sure" somehow involves research or at least knowledge of recognized research others have done?
2. Saddam confined? As if being confined limits your ability to coordinate effort.
3. Weapons shelf life? So we really didn't need to shoot down the "out dated" Silkworm missiles that were inbound to our ship eh!?
4. Korea is another issue entirely - the political posturing lends itself to a variety of venues.
5. There's the "Oil" reference that Red Dawn astutely described.

Not that there aren't some worthy issues for discussion somewhere within your post Moonbeam (giving you a very small benefit of doubt), but add it all up and you can quite proudly consider yourself a Conspiracy theorist. Come on now, still not quite over the election are we? Let's not let that cloud the furthering of sensible discourse. Pardon me, it already has...

 

[Moonbeam]

1. Your being "pretty sure" somehow involves research or at least knowledge of recognized research others have done? (I stated an opinion based of the facts that I take to be facts. You do exactly the same.)

2. Saddam confined? As if being confined limits your ability to coordinate effort. As if coordinate efforts were of some real potential and immediate and known threat)
3. Weapons shelf life? So we really didn't need to shoot down the "out dated" Silkworm missiles that were inbound to our ship eh!? (Referring to biologicals mainly and to chemical too)
4. Korea is another issue entirely - the political posturing lends itself to a variety of venues.(Different to you identical and worse to me. Just a matter of opinion and what I see as denial.)
5. There's the "Oil" reference that Red Dawn astutely described.(which reference, I don't want to look )

Not that there aren't some worthy issues for discussion somewhere within your post Moonbeam (giving you a very small benefit of doubt), but add it all up and you can quite proudly consider yourself a Conspiracy theorist. Come on now, still not quite over the election are we? Let's not let that cloud the furthering of sensible discourse. Pardon me, it already has...

(The clouds, if any, are of your own making. I need no benefit of the doubt from you to state my opinion. What you make of it is your business. I make of yours only an attack on me perhaps because you can't argue the facts or just don't like what I say. I still have my duty as a citizen regardless of what you think. You failed to respond as to why Israel hasn't eliminated the deadly Iraqi 'non' threat. You may be the one who has fallen for a conspiracy theory, the Bush one that Iraq is a threat. Prove yours. We had what, 12 years of imminent threat free Iraq?)

 

[Sketcher]

Moonbeam - You continue to argue the legitimacy of our current involvement with Iraq without reading enough to understand that is not the intent of this thread. You choose to not look (which reference, I don't want to look ). I choose to not explain it to you.

You feel as though I've "attacked" you because I cannot argue facts. Incorrect. I chose to attack your posting because you jump into a thread and post what you think is witty sarcasm without being interested in why the post is created in the first place. Further, you do not read through the thread to get a better understanding of why your posting is getting the attention that it is. If you're not interested, or not wanting to contribute to healthy discussion pertaining to an intended topic - do not burden yourself by posting.

If you still feel it necessary to stamp your name on something, at least do more than regurgitate anti-war one liners and dig in for a bit of reasonable discussion on the matter. I wouldn't mind discussing your proposed issue Israel vs. Iraq, but you discredit your own argument by lamenting an assumed shared responsibility of viewpoint between Israel and the U.S. Obviously there is a different relation between our countries which does not lend itself to singular thinking - but to say that Israel is not concerned with Saddam's capability is both... well let's just say that it is grossly inaccurate.

I'm not against you as a person Moonbeam, just the manner in which you've become disruptive and inconsiderate in a thread which is trying to encourage not doing just that.

 

[Soybomb]

I think perhaps we've miscommunicated some intention between us. My reference to your Sig is to note that you'd espouse fighting to the death for someone else's right to speak, which to me means that you value the right to expressing an opinion even if the opinion is contrary to your own. If that is true, then to misunderstand the plight of the Iraqi people by conveying on us what you assume to be the misplaced responsibility of determining when and if they should be relieved of Saddam is a different argument altogether. Iraqi's are put to death for expressing contrary views to Saddam's dictatorship. Do not base their plight on a valuation of how much you "hear" the people speaking out - for they cannot. To do so is death.

Yes I do believe in aiding others in their quest for freedom of speech but I think they must demonstrate that they want it. If the citizens of Iraq started a rebellion to overthrow their government I would be in full support of helping them with that. I don't see the Iraqi people wanting to get out from under Sadam's rule though. Most people speculate that general troop loyalty is low. Even in his Republican Guard where one would expect for it to be extremely high, there was a coup plot brewed up a few years back. If the people of Iraq want to be free from his grip they need to show it and fight him as well. If it becomes clear that the people of Iraq want rid of him and want our help them I'm all for it, but I still don't see action on their part to indicate it. They may not like him, but they don't seem unhappy enough with him to do anything about it. To do otherwise would be forcing our views on them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Was this the kind of intelligent discourse you were looking for:

"I suppose you'd join Mary Kay Cosmetics because they're offering college scholarships and then become indignant when given your first package of makeup to sell eh?

Come on, you're wading in a pool that is over your head even in the shallow end."

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Was this the kind of intelligent discourse you were looking for:

"I suppose you'd join Mary Kay Cosmetics because they're offering college scholarships and then become indignant when given your first package of makeup to sell eh?

Come on, you're wading in a pool that is over your head even in the shallow end."

Hmm, well... yes. I see your point. Out of context, that looks quite inflammatory and extravagant. What am I saying, IN context it looks quite inflammatory and extravagant! I apologize for the sarcasm. Do not however mistake apology for digression. I full well mean the intent of my statements even if the words could have been chosen better. In defense, at least my sarcasm is somewhat relevant

Moon, as long as you're reaching... why not pick apart my later posts? Or is the shallow end of the pool all the further you'll wade? (come on now, that's some good natured fun poking sarcasm! not just any garden variety taunting )