|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 07/03/2005 : 08:21:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
If more soldiers dying causes more people to turn their support against the war, then shouldn't those of us who oppose the war be in favor of more soldiers dying in order to bring about a quicker end?
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
A false dichotomy.... Of course we shouldn't be interested in seeing more deaths, even if it does bring about a quicker end to US involvement.
The best answer obviously lies outside of your proposition.
Yes, obviously. And I certainly wasn't proposing that as any sort of answer to the dilemma. Just as the war supporters use bogus logic to bolster their position, there is a lot of feeble reasoning being tossed about by those who oppose the war. My comments, and possibly those by Ward Churchill, don't really mean we want to see anyone die, but might be seen as staking out some of the extremes in order to better understand there are millions of shades of gray within.quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Ok, here comes a thought I just had in response to your highly hypothetical question:
Since (I think) most of us here agree that the war on Iraq is illegal, then the soldiers dying in the war are participating in an unlawful action when they should have refused participation in the first place...
That I can agree with. Unfortunately only a scant few have refused. Fortunately (with caveats), the current trend of military recruitment falling far short of quotas seems to show many are refusing to even become soldiers. Of course that situation has its own undesirable defense and security implications.
|
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 10:11:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
So no matter what kind of war we (the US) gets itself into, I have to support that effort or I'm a traitor?
I did not say this. I did say:quote:
There is no question that people can protest the Iraq war and be as patriotic as a person that supports the war.
I am only referring to the kind of protest that is patriotic. I don't think that an anything to get what we want approach to protesting is morally right even if it protected under the constitution.
quote:
I think people who protest what they see as wrong are far more patriotic than the automatons that repeat the mantra "my country/president, right or wrong". I find that mantra to be morally bankrupt and intellectually lazy. (I also find that the majority of people who live by that mantra also possess a lot of other qualities that I find morally bankrupt - usually having to do with religion, etc)
.
You got the obligitory shot at religion even in this subject that has nothing to do with religion.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 11:04:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
I am only referring to the kind of protest that is patriotic. I don't think that an anything to get what we want approach to protesting is morally right even if it protected under the constitution.
And it's not protected. Saying almost anything one wants is what is protected. Actually shooting officers is not a protected form of expression. Never has been. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 11:08:22 [Permalink]
|
| So do you feel that Gitmo, Abu Gharib, Kidnapping and torturing forign citizens, Holding citizens indefinitly without charge and in secret is treasonous? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 11:27:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
So do you feel that Gitmo, Abu Gharib, Kidnapping and torturing forign citizens, Holding citizens indefinitly without charge and in secret is treasonous?
Yes, I do, and those who committed or authorized such acts should stand before General Courts Martial, including the high officers and the Commander in Chief.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 11:38:33 [Permalink]
|
| Can the CIC be court marshalled? That would be a weird trial. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 11:41:22 [Permalink]
|
Murder endorsement aside, it is a copout to attack war protesters as traitorous or unpatriotic instead of addressing the protesters actual issues. It says you need to attack the messenger because you don't have a good response to the message.
This war was never about protecting the USA from terrorism or WMDs. It was planned and implemented by the incompetent and it continues to be run by the incompetent. Thus, I protested in the past and will continue in the future. I also went to several vigils for the lost soldiers with my American Flag. I am very much a patriot. If I wasn't, I'd be planning my move to Canada right now. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 13:24:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
You got the obligitory shot at religion even in this subject that has nothing to do with religion.
I was not taking a shot at religion per se. Just particular people and what they believe. I'm sure I wasn't talking about Buddists, for example.
My point was that the point of view I was discussing (my country/president, right or wrong) , coincidentally or not, is shared by people with certain religous beliefs.
quote:
I am only referring to the kind of protest that is patriotic. I don't think that an anything to get what we want approach to protesting is morally right even if it protected under the constitution.
So, which protests are "morally right"? Is burning the flag morally right? Is burning an effigy morally right? Just wondering where the line is.
And is it morally right for someone to say "If you don't like what the current administration does, leave the country"? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 14:10:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Can the CIC be court marshalled? That would be a weird trial.
Don't know if he's covered by the UCMJ, but as Commander in Chief of the military, with final responsibility for that military, he should be.
But of course, Bush is a past master at dodging responsibility.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 14:47:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
I am only referring to the kind of protest that is patriotic. I don't think that an anything to get what we want approach to protesting is morally right even if it protected under the constitution.
And it's not protected. Saying almost anything one wants is what is protected. Actually shooting officers is not a protected form of expression. Never has been.
Your right Dave, I meant saying anything you want is not always morally correct even if it is protected speech. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 14:57:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Murder endorsement aside, it is a copout to attack war protesters as traitorous or unpatriotic instead of addressing the protesters actual issues. It says you need to attack the messenger because you don't have a good response to the message.
My point is not whether the war is just. It is how patriotic people use their freedom to protest. Having signs that say "get out of Iraq" or "Bush is an Idiot" is OK. But saying you would support someone to kill our own troops in war is not morally right. This was the point I was trying to make, I think the "is Iraq a just war" is for many other threads that have been beat to death.
quote:
This war was never about protecting the USA from terrorism or WMDs. It was planned and implemented by the incompetent and it continues to be run by the incompetent. Thus, I protested in the past and will continue in the future. I also went to several vigils for the lost soldiers with my American Flag. I am very much a patriot. If I wasn't, I'd be planning my move to Canada right now.
I am not qquestioning anybodys patriotism because they are against the war, only on how they protest the war. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 15:03:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, which protests are "morally right"? Is burning the flag morally right? Is burning an effigy morally right? Just wondering where the line is.
And is it morally right for someone to say "If you don't like what the current administration does, leave the country"?
I am not advocating making laws based on my morality. If it is protected speech so be it. That does not mean that I think it is morrally right. I would not protest in this way and I beleive that people do not have the best interest of our country that protest in this way (such as supporting killing our troops or burning a flag) |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 18:44:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
Your right Dave, I meant saying anything you want is not always morally correct even if it is protected speech.
Most people understand that there's a huge difference between words and actions, Robb, and define morality upon acts and not thoughts. "Thought Police" are scary to almost everyone, but not everyone realizes that what they're advocating is along those lines.
Basing a moral code of any sort on what's "OK" to say and what isn't has led to jokes about "politically correct" extremists who use the terms "sanitation engineer" and "aurically challenged" instead of "garbageman" and "deaf" (respectively). Sure, there's a big difference between those examples and "shoot officers," but the real point about morality is that everyone will draw the line in a different place. Morality, after all, is about offending other people's sensibilities, and not any sort of absolute level of human corruption.
So, you shouldn't be claiming that there is any sort of "line" for anyone but yourself. Just say, "I am offended by that" and own up to the fact that it's a personal taste issue. Suggesting it shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment or that it is anti-American or treasonous is selfish and, to my mind, immoral in that I find it offensive when others attempt to push their own personal morality onto others. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 19:02:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.Basing a moral code of any sort on what's "OK" to say and what isn't has led to jokes about "politically correct" extremists who use the terms "sanitation engineer" and "aurically challenged" instead of "garbageman" and "deaf" (respectively). Sure, there's a big difference between those examples and "shoot officers," but the real point about morality is that everyone will draw the line in a different place. Morality, after all, is about offending other people's sensibilities, and not any sort of absolute level of human corruption.
So, you shouldn't be claiming that there is any sort of "line" for anyone but yourself. Just say, "I am offended by that" and own up to the fact that it's a personal taste issue. Suggesting it shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment or that it is anti-American or treasonous is selfish and, to my mind, immoral in that I find it offensive when others attempt to push their own personal morality onto others.
Dave, he's only saying that advocating murder (in this instance, murder of military officers -- something I have a personal distaste for) is bad, even though it is covered under the First Amendment. He's not suggesting that it shouldn't be protected speech; he's just saying it's a terrible thing to say. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2005 : 19:12:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
Dave, he's only saying that advocating murder (in this instance, murder of military officers -- something I have a personal distaste for) is bad, even though it is covered under the First Amendment. He's not suggesting that it shouldn't be protected speech; he's just saying it's a terrible thing to say.
And yet, in the OP, he said,quote:
Or this example from a banner at the bottom of the page that reads:
"We support our troops when they shoot their officers"
This should not be part of free speech and it is surely Anti-American and is treasonous.
My emphasis. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
