self censorship

[limon]

are there any views opinions you self censor? i used to have none. I have many strange controversial views that i will spout at the drop of a hat, argue ad nauseum and back w/ my bankroll if the answer can be proven. lately i have taken one out of the repertoire. I DONT SUPPORT THE TROOPS. last time i checked people have free will. it seems to many morons like to back thier view on this subject w/ their fists and/or decide they can never speak to me again because im worse than hitler or something. what view do you censor?

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
I DONT SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got to put you on the spot here as I have to hear your reasoning on this one. I promise not to turn this into anything more than just accepting your response.

[Dids]

When I'm being smart, I try to not waste time in conversations with people that I know won't/can't listen about what I'm trying to say.

There's a lot of stuff about race and class that I don't bother to discuss with people who I know won't understand or it just won't change. Same with gun control and religion.

From where it seems like you're comming (free will), I think "I don't support the troops" has a chance of being an awfully unsophisticated argument, but I'd love to hear it.

[XXXNoahXXX]

I would say that I support the troops, but only insofar as I realize that there were plenty of people that didn't think "I want to be in a war".

There are people that signed up for various branches for educational benefits, etc.

Others were poor and dumb and got roped into it.


I'm not supportive of what our Commander in Chief is trying to do, but I want as many troops to make it home alive as possible. Then I want them to get the best mental health and general healthcare possible.

So, I support the troops inasmuch that I support people not dying even if they made some bad decisions to be there.

Except for the dudes that kill and rape Iraqi women and children. I don't give a [censored] about trauma of war, that should NEVER occur.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not supportive of what our Commander in Chief is trying to do, but I want as many troops to make it home alive as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how almost every person I've came across that claims they don't support the troops actually feels. They seem to think that just because you support the young men and women to come home safe, it means you agree with the political cause, which certainly isn't true.

Apparently, it's a two way street though since people were so successful in turning no votes towards the Iraqi war into an "against the troops" vote. It shouldn't be and I feel like anyone with 1/2 a sense should be able to differentiate the two.

[MrMon]

As a general rule, any view that generates a response you don't care for is probably best left unexpressed. To most people, this is known as survival.

[Noam Chomsky]

[ QUOTE ]
I got to put you on the spot here as I have to hear your reasoning on this one. I promise not to turn this into anything more than just accepting your response.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
From where it seems like you're comming (free will), I think "I don't support the troops" has a chance of being an awfully unsophisticated argument.......

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that I support the troops, but only insofar as blah blah blah standard widely accepted opinion that couldn't possibly cause one to impose self censorhip to avoid discussing........

[/ QUOTE ]

it's funny how people can simultaneously miss and illustrate the point of the thread at the same time.
(or maybe I'm misunderstanding?)

I think that "Ending World Hunger" is not only an absurd idea but a very bad one to strive for. Redistributing world hunger is a more realistic and less destructive idea.

[NT!]

i don't really censor myself so much as i just don't bother starting arguments that can't be won / have no purpose. i hold a lot of opinions that would probably shock or offend most people but they aren't really important to my daily activities, so i don't feel obligated to share them.

there's a difference between a conflict of principles and a conflict of opinions. i won't hesitate to hash out the former whenever necessary. the latter is usually not worth getting into.

[george w]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I support the troops inasmuch that I support people not dying even if they made some bad decisions to be there.



[/ QUOTE ]

so that means you support the people our troops are fighting too, right?

[Golden_Rhino]

I have found that as I have gotten older I have become more conservative. I am more liberal than most people my age, but compared to the ultra liberal university students I go to school with, I am Rush Limbaugh. I generally keep my yap shut in classroom discussions because it is pretty pointless to get into an argument with kids. (No offense to university students on here. for the most part you guys are intelligent, and can form good arguments. I am sure even you realize that you are the exception and not the norm).

[gusmahler]

Stuff I censor:

* I cuss like a sailor around some of my friends (and especially when I'm driving, even if I'm alone). But I don't cuss at all at work. And rarely cuss in front of my wife.

* I don't talk politics with any co-workers either. I used to in my old job. But my current job is in the Bay Area, with many people with much more "liberal" views than I have. So I just don't talk about that stuff with them. (I also never voiced my libertarian views to "conservative" co-workers at my last job.)

[BPA234]

I hate people who don't capitalize, only slightly less than people who hypocritically claim to support the troops.

[Badger]

I'm pretty excellent at censoring myself. The typical conversation around my house would not be appropriate in most places. And I typically don't bring up controversial subjects unless
1) I think it will be a good discussion
2) I want to piss someone off, which usually involves...
3) I'm drunk

Somewhat off topic:
My best friend swears in public all the time and will discuss things like Alabama hot pockets (urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=alabama+hot+pocket) (Urban Dictionary link- NSFW text) in a restaurant with little kids sitting in the booth next to us. I don't get how he can't at least tone it down in public.

Once I started to let a "that's what she said" slip while bowling with a VP at a company event. Yes, I have a childish sense of humor.

[WhoIam]

I don't vote. I have what I think are good reasons for this but I don't want to explain them here and I'm not interested in debating the issue. Otherwise intelligent and calm people have been known to flip out or view me the way they would someone who picked fights with the mentally retarded when I mention this. I just tell people I voted for Kerry.

I've had some spiritual/occult/transcendent experiences that I will never bring up unless I'm sure the person I'm talking to has had similar experiences. Same thing with drug use.

[Los Feliz Slim]

This is tough to admit, but deep within me I believe that Asian people are bad drivers. I don't want to believe it, I'm ashamed that I believe it, but Jesus Christ, it really seems to me that there are a lot of crappy-driving Asian people. I don't know why this would be, and it's probably not even true. I try to keep this view to myself, but sometimes it forces its way out, much to my embarrassment.

[Bicycles_Biatch]

I'm pretty prejudice... I don't let other know that usually.

[skunkworks]

This is tough to admit, but deep within me I believe that white people are fantastic drivers. I don't want to believe it, I'm ashamed that I believe it, but Jesus Christ, it is the White Man's Burden to teach me and my kind how to drive /images/graemlins/smile.gif

We all have cultural and ethnic stereotypes, some of which are embarrassing. One of the harmless ones I have are that Filipino women are fierce.

[XXXNoahXXX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, I support the troops inasmuch that I support people not dying even if they made some bad decisions to be there.



[/ QUOTE ]

so that means you support the people our troops are fighting too, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I support pretty much minimizing the amount of deaths regardless of nationality or side of the fight.

I'm not gonna lie, I have certain patriotic feelings and empathy for Americans that make me value an American soldier's life more than an Iraqi soldier. But I'm pretty sure 99.9% of Americans feel the same way.

[lippy]

Unless I'm drunk I'll never comment on politics or religion in a social setting where my opinion wasn't solicited.

When I'm drunk, I'll tell people talking about religion that they're stupid and their deity was a conman, etc. I'll also play devil's advocate against anyone I'm around that talks about politics. It usually ends up with me making an enemy or two (but is soooo much fun).

[Boris]

Limon - I lost a lot of respect for you.

[george w]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, I support the troops inasmuch that I support people not dying even if they made some bad decisions to be there.



[/ QUOTE ]

so that means you support the people our troops are fighting too, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I support pretty much minimizing the amount of deaths regardless of nationality or side of the fight.

I'm not gonna lie, I have certain patriotic feelings and empathy for Americans that make me value an American soldier's life more than an Iraqi soldier. But I'm pretty sure 99.9% of Americans feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think a good rule of thumb is that if the majority of america thinks something then you should seriously consider going the opposite way.

in this case you don't even have to use this convenient rule of thumb. imaginary lines and being randomly born in a certain place shouldn't be the only reason to value one human's life over another's.

[Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
This is tough to admit, but deep within me I believe that white people are fantastic drivers. I don't want to believe it, I'm ashamed that I believe it, but Jesus Christ, it is the White Man's Burden to teach me and my kind how to drive /images/graemlins/smile.gif

We all have cultural and ethnic stereotypes, some of which are embarrassing. One of the harmless ones I have are that Filipino women are fierce.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a good reason for this one. Or at least my guess.

Many asians are learning to drive at a much older age, so you're just seeing noobish driving. We all know teenagers can't drive, but we don't factor other demographics into it.

[Coffee]

I have to be careful, because a)I have a pretty dirty mouth, and b)I am a Libertarian, which puts me at odds with most people. It doesn't mean I never voice my opinion, but I basically decide for myself beforehand whether or not I want to get into a debate/fight. Some things I let go, some things I can't let go...it just depends on me.

[guids]

Yes, I have many stupid and irrational beliefs but i never let anyone know what they are becuase I know they are stupid and irrational, and I dont want to end up having people thinking Im a complete douche bag, like many are thinking about the OP.

[miajag]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I have many stupid and irrational beliefs but i never let anyone know what they are becuase I know they are stupid and irrational, and I dont want to end up having people thinking Im a complete douche bag, like many are thinking about the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you just post a couple weeks ago that you don't care what anyone thinks about you?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
Limon - I lost a lot of respect for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?!? you havent evn heard my arguement yet. this is why i self censor on this particular isssue.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I have many stupid and irrational beliefs but i never let anyone know what they are becuase I know they are stupid and irrational, and I dont want to end up having people thinking Im a complete douche bag, like many are thinking about the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you just post a couple weeks ago that you don't care what anyone thinks about you?

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont care what people think...its what they think is worth a fist fight.

[Pudge714]

Self-moderation is more accurate term for me than self-censorship.
A lot of times I just choose to sit a play, when my friends make ridiculous claims such as,
JJ Redick top 10 NCAA B-Ball player of all time.
Barnagi will become as good as Dirk not even close.
Three years from now I would take Brady Quinn over any QB in the NFL.
etc, etc.


I often censor myself about poker. I don't feel like telling my friends that I'm pissed off because I have lost $x this week, or conversely that I'm pissed off because I only won $x or that I'm giddy because this Month I made $x.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
I often censor myself about poker. I don't feel like telling my friends that I'm pissed off because I have lost $x this week, or conversely that I'm pissed off because I only won $x or that I'm giddy because this Month I made $x.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that. I lost 2k whoring a casino once and made the mistake of telling my friends that. They couldn't understand why I would do that. Even though I lost 2k, it was still +EV. It's hard to explain EV to someone who doesn't gamble.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I DONT SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got to put you on the spot here as I have to hear your reasoning on this one. I promise not to turn this into anything more than just accepting your response.

[/ QUOTE ]

here is an intro to the subject. candy coated and simplistic but i dont want ot really get into it if most arent interested.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[felson]

i haven't read it yet, and want to distance myself from his opinion.

working link to limon's article (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)

[Leaky Eye]

I rarely tell people that I don't believe in free will. They are awfully attached to that idea.

[JaredL]

limon et al,

I read the article and agree with pretty much all of it.

It's not so clear that the guy doesn't "support the troops" though. He basically thinks that we need to get the soldiers the care that they need (hospitals and mental I guess) aftwerward and tools like armor they need to fight. While he's not doing anything, nor are the people who put up yellow ribbons and bumper stickers. At least if the things he has to say were implemented the soldiers would actually get real support that would help them.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I DONT SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got to put you on the spot here as I have to hear your reasoning on this one. I promise not to turn this into anything more than just accepting your response.

[/ QUOTE ]

here is an intro to the subject. candy coated and simplistic but i dont want ot really get into it if most arent interested.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that you or it just sums up your opinion?

I want to reply more, but I said I wouldn't and I'll keep it that way /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
I rarely tell people that I don't believe in free will. They are awfully attached to that idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

new kind of science is a book i go back to again and again (on several topics). i tend to think wolframs ideas about free will have alot of merit. heres a snippet of an interview:

"I do think that the history of the universe--and everything in it--is completely determined. But the point about computational irreducibility is that it shows that that doesn't mean it has to be dull. Even though it's determined, it can still be unpredictable and surprising. And it's irreducible--so we actually have to live it in order to see what happens. I find that a bit ennobling: to know that our history can't just be compressed--that we can't predict its outcome without living it.

NKS brings science into quite a few issues that have only been addressable by philosophy--or theology--before. And one of the things that at first seems troubling is that it makes humans seem less special than we thought. But that's often the way science advances. The Copernican revolution showed us that we don't live at a special point in the physical universe. NKS is now telling us that we don't represent a special point in the computational universe either. Still, it tells us something ennobling too: it tells us that we are just as computationally sophisticated as the physical universe."

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I DONT SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got to put you on the spot here as I have to hear your reasoning on this one. I promise not to turn this into anything more than just accepting your response.

[/ QUOTE ]

here is an intro to the subject. candy coated and simplistic but i dont want ot really get into it if most arent interested.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that you or it just sums up your opinion?

I want to reply more, but I said I wouldn't and I'll keep it that way /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

two quotes are spot on:

"I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken -- and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."

and

"The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."

much of the rest can be quibbled w/, added to or simply discarded.

[mbillie1]

I censor tons of opinions I have, on religion, ethics, relationships etc... why bother starting an argument when you don't have to? I'm not going to back down from an opinion because it's unpopular, but in casual conversation I'm more likely to give a lazy "yeah" than launch into a philosophical discussion on why I don't think it's possible to have an absolute morality, etc. IMO Certain opinions only resonate with certain people and it can be incredibly time-wasting to argue for an hour with someone who is set in his or her ways and will not concede any point to any logic, evidence, etc.

[jkkkk]

Determinism is probably best left out of most conversations unless you are speaking with like minded people.

Oh yeah and fwiw I believe everyone has loads of self censors, whether they realise it or not.

[Boris]

Limon - Don't really care about your reasons. I support the war and the troops.

"The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."

[shemp]

I think the phrase "self-censorship" is inapt. Editing one's own expressions, for whatever reason, is not censorship imo.

And the invocation of "censorship" strikes me as a cowardly advance against some other who can't handle freedom of speech-- so I the victim am double wronged, not only am I being suppressed, but I'm forced into being my own suppressor.

Anyway. I often don't express my thoughts on this or that (many subjects) for many of the reasons already provided in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]

two quotes are spot on:

"I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken -- and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."

and

"The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."

much of the rest can be quibbled w/, added to or simply discarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first quote is irrelevant, I assume, because neither the author or you are pacifist-- in which case, a direct refutation of the distinction between "jus in bello" and "jus ad bellum" would be necessary.

The second quote strikes me as incoherent.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]

"The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm just not paying enough attention but I was under the impression that the biggest complaint against the war is the unneccesary loss of american lives. wouldnt american soldiers not pulling the trigger merely increase the amount of them that die? I guess you could argue that if no soldiers would fight then bush would have been forced to pull out or never send them in the first place, but then what happens when there is a legit threat and it is left up to a bunch of enlisted people to decide if their morality tells them whether they should fight or not.

fwiw i supported the war at the beginning and no longer do, but i do know that i am still sure as hell am glad that its not me thats over there and that if it was me i sure as hell wouldnt want my fellow americans blaming me for doing my job.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
Limon - Don't really care about your reasons. I support the war and the troops.


[/ QUOTE ]

cool. you support the war and the troops. do you understand why not supporting the war while claiming to support the troops is the most gutless and intellectually dishonest position a person can take? i dont support the war and dont support the tools being used for that war. do you always support the troops if they are following orders? do you believe orders from a civilian buffoon supercede free will? sun tzu said a true warrior disobeys orders from an untrained/uninformed/unjust ruler...can this ever be true for you?

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the harmless ones I have are that Filipino women are fierce.

[/ QUOTE ]

I unabashedly confirm that stereotype, having now spent almost a decade with Mrs. Treesong.

[XXXNoahXXX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Limon - Don't really care about your reasons. I support the war and the troops.


[/ QUOTE ]

cool. you support the war and the troops. do you understand why not supporting the war while claiming to support the troops is the most gutless and intellectually dishonest position a person can take? i dont support the war and dont support the tools being used for that war. do you always support the troops if they are following orders? do you believe orders from a civilian buffoon supercede free will? sun tzu said a true warrior disobeys orders from an untrained/uninformed/unjust ruler...can this ever be true for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to understand that when most people say they "Support the Troops" they are not saying that they support the military operations being carried out by them. For most people its a clean and easy way of saying "I hope they don't all come home in boxes."

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the phrase "self-censorship" is inapt. Editing one's own expressions, for whatever reason, is not censorship imo.

And the invocation of "censorship" strikes me as a cowardly advance against some other who can't handle freedom of speech-- so I the victim am double wronged, not only am I being suppressed, but I'm forced into being my own suppressor.

Anyway. I often don't express my thoughts on this or that (many subjects) for many of the reasons already provided in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]

two quotes are spot on:

"I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken -- and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."

and

"The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."

much of the rest can be quibbled w/, added to or simply discarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first quote is irrelevant, I assume, because neither the author or you are pacifist-- in which case, a direct refutation of the distinction between "jus in bello" and "jus ad bellum" would be necessary.

The second quote strikes me as incoherent.

[/ QUOTE ]

the concepts expressed in these quotes are clear and easy to understand. dont get too smart. see my response to boris for further dissection of these issues.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Limon - Don't really care about your reasons. I support the war and the troops.


[/ QUOTE ]

cool. you support the war and the troops. do you understand why not supporting the war while claiming to support the troops is the most gutless and intellectually dishonest position a person can take? i dont support the war and dont support the tools being used for that war. do you always support the troops if they are following orders? do you believe orders from a civilian buffoon supercede free will? sun tzu said a true warrior disobeys orders from an untrained/uninformed/unjust ruler...can this ever be true for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Troops", as the term is typically used, don't get orders from the President-- that's not how the chain of command works.

I confess I'm a bit unclear why being against the war but not against the soldiers is the "the most gutless and intellectually dishonest position a person can take" -- but probably best to stay on target for the general thread idea.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Limon - Don't really care about your reasons. I support the war and the troops.


[/ QUOTE ]

cool. you support the war and the troops. do you understand why not supporting the war while claiming to support the troops is the most gutless and intellectually dishonest position a person can take? i dont support the war and dont support the tools being used for that war. do you always support the troops if they are following orders? do you believe orders from a civilian buffoon supercede free will? sun tzu said a true warrior disobeys orders from an untrained/uninformed/unjust ruler...can this ever be true for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to understand that when most people say they "Support the Troops" they are not saying that they support the military operations being carried out by them. For most people its a clean and easy way of saying "I hope they don't all come home in boxes."

[/ QUOTE ]

i cant support that position. from squashing slave rebellions to native american genocide to institutionalized torture at abu grahib there a many instances where the perp of these crimes deserves no better than a box. they endager myself and my freedom and have already surendered all that make them human.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
"The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely disagree with this view. Part of my objection is practical, which is to say that permitting moral choice among combat soldiers will vastly increase our own casualties. And I also disagree because the statement implicitly assumes the immorality of this war, and thus that our soldiers are doing just that. I suspect that a substantial portion of the military is in favor of the war. Go read Ilario Pantano's "Warlord" for a rather different picture than you'll get from the LA times.

I do think the other observation (that it's hypocritical to support the troops but oppose the war) has some force.

[limon]

"Troops", as the term is typically used, don't get orders from the President-- that's not how the chain of command works."

you're getting too smart again.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
i cant support that position. from squashing slave rebellions to native american genocide to institutionalized torture at abu grahib there a many instances where the perp of these crimes deserves no better than a box. they endager myself and my freedom and have already surendered all that make them human.

[/ QUOTE ]

limon,

I apologize, partially because I said I wouldn't reply to you and partially because I opened this can of worms by asking you to express your opinion.

You seem like an articulate, smart man. However, what I have bolded, makes zero sense to me. As I'm sure you know, you have your life as it is now and that freedom because of the same troops you are chastising.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]

i cant support that position. from squashing slave rebellions to native american genocide to institutionalized torture at abu grahib there a many instances where the perp of these crimes deserves no better than a box. they endager myself and my freedom and have already surendered all that make them human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I suppose I'm glad you have the net where you don't have to "self-censor" out of fear that some jackass will assault you and you can get these things off your chest. I'm impressed by your passion (on the net, anyway), if not your reason.

[limon]

" Part of my objection is practical, which is to say that permitting moral choice among combat soldiers will vastly increase our own casualties."

will it ..really? there are many that would disagree. is it possible that ignoring things like the geneva accords actually kill more soldiers. most would agree the pictures that came out of abu grahib fueled insurgency and the death of many more us soldiers than we might have expected. is it possible that making moral decisions at the point of conflict actually wins the heart and minds of people who might otherwise kill you. this is another topic sun tzu discusses. i hear they study the text at west point.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
As I'm sure you know, you have your life as it is now and that freedom because of the same troops you are chastising.

[/ QUOTE ]

really?the troops who were squashing slave rebellions, killing indians and pointing at iraqi penises, all under orders, gave me my life and freedom? i believe they delayed it and we have it inspite of them not because of them.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
"Troops", as the term is typically used, don't get orders from the President-- that's not how the chain of command works."

you're getting too smart again.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the reasons why I don't express opinions on certain things is that emotions run too hot for reasoned debate-- interestingly, when the emotions aren't running hot there's often no reason for debate because people quickly and dispassionately identify precisely where they disagree and agree that it is simply an impasse.

I gather your view is something like: the war is wrong, it comes from a bad tribe, with a bad chief, and that the warriors ought to be held responsible for their own bad choices of being where they are.

And you are willing to simply disagree with those who think that the war is right and so are the soldiers (more or less).

But (and this is the part that baffles me) you are unwilling to accept that some see important distinctions between the cause for war and the conduct of the soldier-- out of anything other than intellectual dishonesty.

[JaredL]

BTW to get back on topic but keep with the off-topic slide, I personally don't think that soldiers are "fighting for our freedom" and haven't done so in a single war since WWII, in which it was questionable at best. One could make an argument for Afghanistan as well. I think there are valid reasons for using the US military, but the military extremely rarely has fought for our freedom.

Most of the time I hold my tongue it's around certain people. My brother-in-law is in the navy and my sister is overly sensitive about anything that could even faintly be construed as military bashing, especially by me. For example, when we were in Hawai'i for my wedding she made a comment about how the roads were quite nice. I said that they were nice because the military used them, which is true. Apparently, this comment bothered her. Admittedly my tone was probably pretty negative because I'm pretty antimilitary (especially in Hawai'i), but that was in no way out of line. So basically around my sister and her husband, who is an out and out racist bigot, I have to constantly censor myself or risk constantly getting into huge arguments that go nowhere.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I'm sure you know, you have your life as it is now and that freedom because of the same troops you are chastising.

[/ QUOTE ]

really?the troops who were squashing slave rebellions, killing indians and pointing at iraqi penisis, all under orders, gave me my life and freedom? i beleive they delayed it and we have it inspite of them not because of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

limon,

Please don't be naive in thinking that only such examples of troops committed atrocities. Just because things aren't as well documented as say Vietnam or Iraq doesn't make such soldiers as the revolutionaries saints.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
" Part of my objection is practical, which is to say that permitting moral choice among combat soldiers will vastly increase our own casualties."

will it ..really? there are many that would disagree. is it possible that ignoring things like the geneva accords actually kill more soldiers. most would agree the pictures that came out of abu grahib fueled insurgency and the death of many more us soldiers than we might have expected. is it possible that making moral decisions at the point of conflict actually wins the heart and minds of people who might otherwise kill you. this is another topic sun tzu discusses. i hear they study the text at west point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are hopelessly naive on this point. I do not believe that the mainstream populace of Iraq is overly hostile to our presence. Pantano's book contends that one reason we do not get good intel about jihadis is because the mainstream population does not believe we will remain and thus are afraid to take our side. I believe Abu Ghraib is trivial in comparison to the horrors that Shi'a work on Sunni and vice versa, and that should be obvious to anyone who thinks deeply about it.

I don't know if we can continue to debate this without hostility; perhaps we can. But in any event, let's not burden EDF with more of that. PM me if you'd like to argue more.

I'll read any book you choose on the subject and send you a copy of Pantano's book, just to try to get to similar premises.

[Stuey]

I don't think I self censor myself. But I do present my ideas differently depending on the reaction I expect.

Limon you sound like you think your opinion (You don't support the troops) causes the problems. Or the intelligence of the people that don't agree with you causes the problem. I don't think that is what is happening. I think you are expressing your opinion in a way that leads to conflict.

It is hard to explain but small changes in the way you present your view would result in a different reaction from your audience. Don't attack their view and don't try to sell the idea of absolutes. Leave room for them to keep their opinion. And believe it or not you could leave the door open to you yourself being wrong. You don't have to believe it but just saying something like "I hope I am wrong about this but currently for reasons x,y, and z I feel I can't support the troops".

This will get more people to listen to you and less people will get emotional. Some people will always get emotional tho. It is the only way they know to get their point across and you don't want to be like them do you?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I'm sure you know, you have your life as it is now and that freedom because of the same troops you are chastising.

[/ QUOTE ]

really?the troops who were squashing slave rebellions, killing indians and pointing at iraqi penisis, all under orders, gave me my life and freedom? i beleive they delayed it and we have it inspite of them not because of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

limon,

Please don't be naive in thinking that only such examples of troops committed atrocities. Just because things aren't as well documented as say Vietnam or Iraq doesn't make such soldiers as the revolutionaries saints.

[/ QUOTE ]

theres a big difference between "not being a saint" while killing redcoats 2 miles from your house in a moral defensive war and burning down the village of people youll never know or meet 2000 miles away from home in a war of choice.

[Leaky Eye]

limon,

way to train wreck your own perfectly good thread.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
" Part of my objection is practical, which is to say that permitting moral choice among combat soldiers will vastly increase our own casualties."

will it ..really? there are many that would disagree. is it possible that ignoring things like the geneva accords actually kill more soldiers. most would agree the pictures that came out of abu grahib fueled insurgency and the death of many more us soldiers than we might have expected. is it possible that making moral decisions at the point of conflict actually wins the heart and minds of people who might otherwise kill you. this is another topic sun tzu discusses. i hear they study the text at west point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are hopelessly naive on this point. I do not believe that the mainstream populace of Iraq is overly hostile to our presence. Pantano's book contends that one reason we do not get good intel about jihadis is because the mainstream population does not believe we will remain and thus are afraid to take our side. I believe Abu Ghraib is trivial in comparison to the horrors that Shi'a work on Sunni and vice versa, and that should be obvious to anyone who thinks deeply about it.

I don't know if we can continue to debate this without hostility; perhaps we can. But in any event, let's not burden EDF with more of that. PM me if you'd like to argue more.

I'll read any book you choose on the subject and send you a copy of Pantano's book, just to try to get to similar premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can i be hoplessly naive when books like cobra II and fiasco echo my opinion. if youre right an aweful lot of generals are hopelessly naive.

[idrinkcoors]

Limon,

The LA Times article you linked is from Joel Stein, a guy most famous for trying to make witty remarks about J-Lo on those cheesy VH-1 celebrity shows. I'm not sure if a guy who makes his living examining Brittney and K-Fed's relationship should be considered the leading authority on the geopolitical landscape of the mideast.

I realize that you are just trying to stir the pot here Limon, but if you had lost a close relative on 9/11, you would possibly feel a little more respectful to those fighting to keep you safe and free.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
limon,

way to train wreck your own perfectly good thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

i should have self censored.

[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]
Limon,

The LA Times article you linked is from Joel Stein, a guy most famous for trying to make witty remarks about J-Lo on those cheesy VH-1 celebrity shows. I'm not sure if a guy who makes his living examining Brittney and K-Fed's relationship should be considered the leading authority on the geopolitical landscape of the mideast.

I realize that you are just trying to stir the pot here Limon, but if you had lost a close relative on 9/11, you would possibly feel a little more respectful to those fighting to keep you safe and free.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fighting that the soldiers in Iraq are doing makes us both less safe and less free.

I can't speak for limon but had I lost a family member I'd be super pissed that their death is being used as an excuse for a bad war that, at least when it was strated, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
Limon,

The LA Times article you linked is from Joel Stein, a guy most famous for trying to make witty remarks about J-Lo on those cheesy VH-1 celebrity shows. I'm not sure if a guy who makes his living examining Brittney and K-Fed's relationship should be considered the leading authority on the geopolitical landscape of the mideast.

I realize that you are just trying to stir the pot here Limon, but if you had lost a close relative on 9/11, you would possibly feel a little more respectful to those fighting to keep you safe and free.

[/ QUOTE ]

check some polls on support of the war/president by manhattanites. it seems many who lost the most dont agree. and i had a disclaimer for the voracity of the stein article.

[El Diablo]

limon,

I in general find that I don't self censor at all with friends that I consider to be very intelligent. Those are people I can disagree with on an intellectual level without things having to get personal. A lot of ideas I have that are maybe somewhat different than the norm contain tons of nuance that make it far different than just a broad, generalized position. I find it very hard to express that stuff correctly to a ton of people, especially on the internet, so I don't bother.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
limon,

way to train wreck your own perfectly good thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

i should have self censored.

[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed.

[ QUOTE ]
theres a big difference between "not being a saint" while killing redcoats 2 miles from your house in a moral defensive war and burning down the village of people youll never know or meet 2000 miles away from home in a war of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

What really made the American Revolution a moral defensive war? Just because "we" gained our freedom from it? The American Revolution was also a war of choice.

Any war is two-sided where either side can be looked at as moral or immoral, which is one of the reasons why war is so dirty.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
limon,

way to train wreck your own perfectly good thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

i should have self censored.

[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed.

[ QUOTE ]
theres a big difference between "not being a saint" while killing redcoats 2 miles from your house in a moral defensive war and burning down the village of people youll never know or meet 2000 miles away from home in a war of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

What really made the American Revolution a moral defensive war? Just because "we" gained our freedom from it? The American Revolution was also a war of choice.

Any war is two-sided where either side can be looked at as moral or immoral, which is one of the reasons why war is so dirty.

[/ QUOTE ]

c'mon man! we declared independence not war. if the british wouldnt have sent warships there wouls have been no war. and if you believe the founders had the inalienable rights of life, liberty and property than you have to believe it was moral for them to fight the war.

[idrinkcoors]

" check some polls on support of the war/president by manhattanites. it seems many who lost the most dont agree."

Limon,

There are many honorable people who oppose the President and/or the war, and support the troops.

Again, please appreciate your current safety and freedom. It didn't happen by accident.

[ElSapo]

[ QUOTE ]
are there any views opinions you self censor? i used to have none. I have many strange controversial views that i will spout at the drop of a hat, argue ad nauseum and back w/ my bankroll if the answer can be proven. lately i have taken one out of the repertoire. I DONT SUPPORT THE TROOPS. last time i checked people have free will. it seems to many morons like to back thier view on this subject w/ their fists and/or decide they can never speak to me again because im worse than hitler or something. what view do you censor?

[/ QUOTE ]

The other day, when I was more down than usual about the war and the current state of politics and the world and widespread violence, I had this thought — I remembered how troops returning from Vietnam were treated (awfully), and I could start to understand that.

Everything I'm taught, everything I'm socially conditioned by the news and parents and whoever and whoever, says now that that isn't the right idea. But I could start to see it. Our leaders (Bush) seem so far removed sometimes, and it seems so much more logical in a way to say that this awful war wouldn't be happening if we didn't have troops fighting it, troops doing, at times, some awful things.

Do I support the troops? I really don't know. Maybe not, I guess. But I can certainly understand anyone who does, and I think I'm also beginning to understand those who don't.

It's an awful war (perhaps all wars are). That much I believe without hesitation.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
" check some polls on support of the war/president by manhattanites. it seems many who lost the most dont agree."

Limon,

There are many honorable people who oppose the President and/or the war, and support the troops.

Again, please appreciate your current safety and freedom. It didn't happen by accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can be honorable and dead wrong, among many other things. please appreciate that the danger and restraint felt by many americans at home and abroad didnt happen by accident either.

[limon]

"Do I support the troops? I really don't know. Maybe not, I guess. But I can certainly understand anyone who does, and I think I'm also beginning to understand those who don't."

this is what matters. but remember one side is correct. keep thinking...critically.

[Dids]

This is probably a forum no-no, but I'm grunching the thread to give a few responses.

I'm torn.

I know my friends who've ended up in the military did so more out of necessity than patriotism. It's a very viable option for a lot of low income folks. Once you're in, making that choice to not be involved in war is pretty difficult.

There's a guy in Seattle who just dodged a court martial (he was tried and the jury hung) for refusing to go to war. So "not pulling the trigger" has a lot of pretty lousy consequences.

Personally, I think killing people is real [censored]. My Dad was a CO from Vietnam because he didn't believe in it, and I'm really lucky that I have the choice not to do that sort of thing, and I'd encourage more people to make the same.

[ElSapo]

[ QUOTE ]
"Do I support the troops? I really don't know. Maybe not, I guess. But I can certainly understand anyone who does, and I think I'm also beginning to understand those who don't."

this is what matters. but remember one side is correct. keep thinking...critically.

[/ QUOTE ]

"One side is correct."

I don't know about that. That's what opinions are all about. In fact, in most situations I'd say that's wrong -- who is "right" and "wrong" these days hinges on where you're from, what your income is, who you voted for and if you're religous. Or some variation of that.

In fact, I think I really disagree with the "one side is correct" idea. That seems like an almost offensive thing to say to someone who was just supporting your thought process, more or less, if not your conclusion. (not that you care)

I dunno. That just came off as too self-serving for my taste. Yeah, I think it's an awful war begun for the wrong reasons and continued for no reasons. But if Joe Smith wants to say he supports the troops, who am I or anyone to say he's "wrong?" Even if I disagree?

I feel like you just took my general comment in your support and really tried to take advantage of it. That bothers me.

[limon]

"There's a guy in Seattle who just dodged a court martial (he was tried and the jury hung) for refusing to go to war. So "not pulling the trigger" has a lot of pretty lousy consequences."

the consequences are no worse than what judith miller went through for not giving up her source in the treacherous valerie plame outing. i think a soldier should be brave enough to endure as much jailtime as this partisan hack in order to save his soul.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Do I support the troops? I really don't know. Maybe not, I guess. But I can certainly understand anyone who does, and I think I'm also beginning to understand those who don't."

this is what matters. but remember one side is correct. keep thinking...critically.

[/ QUOTE ]

"One side is correct."

I don't know about that. That's what opinions are all about. In fact, in most situations I'd say that's wrong -- who is "right" and "wrong" these days hinges on where you're from, what your income is, who you voted for and if you're religous. Or some variation of that.

In fact, I think I really disagree with the "one side is correct" idea. That seems like an almost offensive thing to say to someone who was just supporting your thought process, more or less, if not your conclusion. (not that you care)

I dunno. That just came off as too self-serving for my taste. Yeah, I think it's an awful war begun for the wrong reasons and continued for no reasons. But if Joe Smith wants to say he supports the troops, who am I or anyone to say he's "wrong?" Even if I disagree?

I feel like you just took my general comment in your support and really tried to take advantage of it. That bothers me.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry dude, i really hate wishy washy "YOURE BOTH RIGHT" arguements. especially when one side is most definately wrong. a flush beats a straight, the earth revolves around the sun and if the us military is ordered to commit an atrocity and they follow those orders i absolutely do not support them.

[ElSapo]

[ QUOTE ]
i really hate wishy washy "YOUR BOTH RIGHT" arguements.

[/ QUOTE ]

And people who absolutely espouse absolute ideas have a tendancy to be absolutely scary. And we're absolutely in an absolutely horrible war.

I dunno. I'm stepping out of this conversation because I think I stepped into something. Good luck with your discussion; your opinion won't draw my ire.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i really hate wishy washy "YOUR BOTH RIGHT" arguements.

[/ QUOTE ]

And people who absolutely espouse absolute ideas have a tendancy to be absolutely scary. And we're absolutely in an absolutely horrible war.

I dunno. I'm stepping out of this conversation because I think I stepped into something. Good luck with your discussion; your opinion won't draw my ire.

[/ QUOTE ]

ire averted.

[limon]

"I don't think that is what is happening. I think you are expressing your opinion in a way that leads to conflict."

i dunno stuey. try making my argument w/o equivocating. i dont think youll be able to massage your way out of it. find a 68 yr old kkk grand wizard and tell him you think blacks are humans equal to whites and should be able to intermarry. see haw far that gets you. you probably wont meet that kkk guy though but you meet bumper sticker patriots all day long. (less every day though...yay!)

[Jdanz]

[ QUOTE ]
" check some polls on support of the war/president by manhattanites. it seems many who lost the most dont agree."

Limon,

There are many honorable people who oppose the President and/or the war, and support the troops.

Again, please appreciate your current safety and freedom. It didn't happen by accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I have to question the relevance of this.

If I am thankful of those who fought justly in the past must I of necessity be supportive of those who I think do evil?

I'm going to keep my personal opinions out of this, but it seems emminently reasonable to think that what US soldiers in Iraq are doing is simply wrong and evil, and in no way is benificial to my freedom.

I think it also reasonable to think the exact opposite, that in fact their efforts are justified and they are protecting my freedoms.

While both of these seem to be opinions that two distinct rational people could legitametely come to, if one holds the former to be true than how is he disrespecting and being ungrateful? He is simply chastising evil in the world, which has no bearing on his freedom other than to reflect negatively on himself and his nation.

Further I don't think it should be taken as a given that anything a man in the uniform of the United States is just, nor that anything the United States as a whole does is just. By simply assuming that to be true we abdicate our responsiblity as moral agents, I think it is this weak acquiesence to percieved evil that so angers Limon. It is not necessarily a claim to absolute rightness but an attack against those who would lend passive legitamacy to actions they themselves felt were immoral.

[Stuey]

[ QUOTE ]
i dunno stuey. try making my argument w/o equivocating. i dont think youll be able to massage your way out of it. find a 68 yr old kkk grand wizard and tell him you think blacks are humans equal to whites and should be able to intermarry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equivocate

1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

I had to look it up. I agree with you there is no need to deceive or to avoid committing yourself to what you say. El Sapo sounded very intelligent in his posts you sound angry. I am not sure you are angry but understand people get that vibe from you. Dumb people or people with vested interests in this topic will react back at you with anger you are too smart not to know that.

I thought you censor your view because people want to fist fight over it. I did not know you censor your view because you would only be satisfied if you changed peoples' minds.

I can tell the KKK guy my view and he won't attack me. He won't change his mind either because he can't he is stuck. My telling him my view is not a waste however. Well I don't feel it is a waste I am worried you do though.

[fish2plus2]

Whenever anyone is talking about our soliders, our young boys, our (18-40 year old)children... it always brings out a bunch of PC ideas inhereited from the boob tube and politition's mouths.

The moment someone says that they think the war is wrong, they must immediately clarify that they support the troops. Honestly, I dont even know what the hell it means when someone says "I support the troops, but not what they are doing in Iraq". That is like when someone says "I like you Limon, but your ideas are wrong", wtf does one thing have to do with another, except the fact that you are just being polite?

I dont hold them responsible for the governments policies, but I really dont have much pity for them because they choose to join the armed forces:

Q. What do the armed forces do for a living?
A. THEY GO TO WAR AND DIE.

Liberals constantly insist on shouting "will someone please think of the children", these guys arent children. Please stop calling them our children, our young boys, etc. There is no draft, Iraq is not Vietnam.

[fish2plus2]

"I find it very hard to express that stuff correctly to a ton of people, especially on the internet, so I don't bother."

Hey, this is the El Diablo Forum of above average intelligence. Dicuss away!

[fish2plus2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, I support the troops inasmuch that I support people not dying even if they made some bad decisions to be there.



[/ QUOTE ]

so that means you support the people our troops are fighting too, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

nh.

I think what people mean to say is "i disagree with the War in Iraq and I pity the soliders".

Certainly, supporting the confused mislead Iraqi soliders would be an act of treason.

[limon]

"I thought you censor your view because people want to fist fight over it. I did not know you censor your view because you know you can't change peoples' minds.

I can tell the KKK guy my view and he won't attack me. He won't change his mind either because he can't he is stuck. My telling him my view is not a waste however. Well I don't feel it is a waste I am worried you do though."

we dont agree here. i think the kkk guy WILL try to punch you. i know this from experience. if i have no fear of fisticuffs i will argue anything if i feel i have something to gain. (btw i dont fear a fight but it needs to be the only solution to a threatening situation)the main reason i dont argue is becuase i know my opponent is wrong and wont bet. i hate to let someone be wrong for free. time is money. i waste time on this forum because im bored, drunk (2000 chateau loeville poyferre...tight as a nuns as.shole)and feel i owe posts to a forum i asked for. also im not angry i just hat to type.

[fish2plus2]

fwiw, i have sometimes considered joining the marines because i think it would be cool to kill people for a living and blow [censored] up. i imagine that many of the marines who did join, did so along those lines, not because they wanted to make the world a safer and better place and god bless america and all of that nonsense.

fwiw, i think people who are willing to go to war are very interesting and i would love for someone in iraq to do an "ask me about iraq thread", but when some dude gets court marshalled because he thinks the iraq war is unjust - I tend to think that he wanted all of that free education money and scholarships and acclaim, but now when push comes to shove he doesnt want to meet his end of the agreement. Tough titty.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
i imagine that many of the marines who did join, did so along those lines, not because they wanted to make the world a safer and better place and god bless america and all of that nonsense.


[/ QUOTE ]

yes. and they fight for their buddy next to them and not for coward war profiteers like bush/cheney. but this is not an excuse to kill 500,000 civilians w/ 4,000,000 next of kin who will seek vengeance for a generation. RANT ALERT: if i lived in kansas city i might not care much but i live in l.a. w/ a bullseye on my chest. its an example of blue staters (simplification)paying for the sins of redstaters (simplification). its easy to kill "ragheads" when youll never even visit manhattan. the red states have, as rumsfeld would say, no legitimate targets. i find funny how people from the armpit st. louis (ive been there), while panning "evil"ution will criticize "san francisco values" maybe some of these bloated pasty freaks should visit san francisco and see it is one of the greatest cities in the world. food, culture, commerce second to none. do flyover people ever wonder why california is the 5th largest economy in the world? with all our h.omos, pacifists and scientists. it gets heavy carrying water for all these morons. END RANT. (bordeuax is goooood)

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
This is tough to admit, but deep within me I believe that white people are fantastic drivers. I don't want to believe it, I'm ashamed that I believe it, but Jesus Christ, it is the White Man's Burden to teach me and my kind how to drive /images/graemlins/smile.gif

We all have cultural and ethnic stereotypes, some of which are embarrassing. One of the harmless ones I have are that Filipino women are fierce.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sir are a racist! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is tough to admit, but deep within me I believe that white people are fantastic drivers. I don't want to believe it, I'm ashamed that I believe it, but Jesus Christ, it is the White Man's Burden to teach me and my kind how to drive /images/graemlins/smile.gif

We all have cultural and ethnic stereotypes, some of which are embarrassing. One of the harmless ones I have are that Filipino women are fierce.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sir are a racist! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

can we ban emoticons on edf? my threads at least?!?

[fish2plus2]

"but this is not an excuse to kill 500,000 civilians w/ 4,000,000 next of kin who will seek vengeance for a generation."

so you are saying each marine has an individual responsibility to decide if his actions are correct and for the overall good of the human race? it seems impossible to run an armed forces with this mentality, however it is the exact reason i would never join.

i find it hard to hold individual marines to these terms, and i place the blame on the government.

btw, slightly off topic but such a great quote from Lord of War: "the earliest human beings were found with spears in their heads"

[limon]

"so you are saying each marine has an individual responsibility to decide if his actions are correct and for the overall good of the human race?"

yes, w/ a caveat. you dont have to decide in the heat of battle when your life and the life of your buddies is on the line. but afterward, you do need the courage to say, waht i/we did was wrong and i will go no further. one of the few admirable things my father ever did was get drafted, go to vietnam and then go awol once he found out the truth. that takes courage. incinerating "gooks" w/ superior firepower is a cowardly act.

[blackize]

Limon,

I am concerned about the absolute certainty you spout your opinion with. Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
Limon,

I am concerned about the absolute certainty you spout your opinion with. Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

[/ QUOTE ]

check the what is your job thread from a couple days ago.

[XXXNoahXXX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, I support the troops inasmuch that I support people not dying even if they made some bad decisions to be there.



[/ QUOTE ]

so that means you support the people our troops are fighting too, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I support pretty much minimizing the amount of deaths regardless of nationality or side of the fight.

I'm not gonna lie, I have certain patriotic feelings and empathy for Americans that make me value an American soldier's life more than an Iraqi soldier. But I'm pretty sure 99.9% of Americans feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think a good rule of thumb is that if the majority of america thinks something then you should seriously consider going the opposite way.

in this case you don't even have to use this convenient rule of thumb. imaginary lines and being randomly born in a certain place shouldn't be the only reason to value one human's life over another's.

[/ QUOTE ]


Those aren't the only reason I value someone's life. Like I said, I value the life of an Iraqi civilian more than some American soldier that goes over there and rapes and kills those same civilians.

There is a lot more that goes into than us=good and them=bad.

I believe there are innocent people on both sides of this fight. I also believe there are guilty people on both sides of the fight.

It's human nature to mourn the loss of those that are closest to them. Each person has radiating circles and the closer something is to the epicenter, the more you will feel it.

If I'm listening to the news and I hear "A plane crashed killing all 350 passengers on board....." I react differently if the next words are "in Massachusetts" or "in Peru".

Both are tragedies, and the loss of life is equal, the pain of the families is equal. I am saying that this is a selfish flaw I have based largely on the fact that the closer it is to me the more likely it could have been me or my family, so when the deaths are over there, I breathe a sigh of relief.

[idrinkcoors]

In the end Limon, I guess it really doesn't matter whether or not you support the troops. I can't imagine that they would care what you think. Not only do they have honor, and decency, but I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that they are probably tougher and braver than you are. (This Lack of self-censorship stuff feels good!). /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It also speaks volumes about their character that they would be willing to sacrifice their lives for people like you.

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]
In the end Limon, I guess it really doesn't matter whether or not you support the troops. I can't imagine that they would care what you think. Not only do they have honor, and decency, but I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that they are probably tougher and braver than you are. (This Lack of self-censorship stuff feels good!). /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It also speaks volumes about their character that they would be willing to sacrifice their lives for people like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honor, sacrifice, courage, character, and duty are such empty, manipulative words. It's words like these that encourage suicide bombers, religious crusades, and stupid wars like our current one. These words frame any debate over a military action so that objectors are cowardly, dishonorable, whatever. They manipulate the emotions of people like yourself: "This Lack of self-censorship stuff feels good!"

[Montezuma21]

I support the troops- I just want them to lose.

Edit: joking, btw, nobody flame me.

[JaredL]

idrinkcoors,

[ QUOTE ]

It also speaks volumes about their character that they would be willing to sacrifice their lives for people like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have repeatedly made claims like this but have given absolutely no support of them. As I said, the war in Iraq and hence the fighting done by the soldiers there, have made us less safe and less free. There are many sources that say that we are now less safe as a result of the war in Iraq.

What makes you think that
a) the soliders are actually fighting for guys like limon (and not say a paycheck)?
b) they do something to improve his quality of life?

Is it just that you hear politicians say this all the time? Just because it's said doesn't make it true.

I'm reminded of all the Chinese students I know that just spout off verbatim their government line on everything. It's pretty sad that this is the case.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
In the end Limon, I guess it really doesn't matter whether or not you support the troops. I can't imagine that they would care what you think. Not only do they have honor, and decency, but I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that they are probably tougher and braver than you are. (This Lack of self-censorship stuff feels good!). /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It also speaks volumes about their character that they would be willing to sacrifice their lives for people like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

none of the soldiers are fighting for me. lindy england did put that naked iraqi on a leash for me though. go have a coors emoticon boy.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
Whenever anyone is talking about our soliders, our young boys, our (18-40 year old)children... it always brings out a bunch of PC ideas inhereited from the boob tube and politition's mouths.

The moment someone says that they think the war is wrong, they must immediately clarify that they support the troops. Honestly, I dont even know what the hell it means when someone says "I support the troops, but not what they are doing in Iraq". That is like when someone says "I like you Limon, but your ideas are wrong", wtf does one thing have to do with another, except the fact that you are just being polite?

I dont hold them responsible for the governments policies, but I really dont have much pity for them because they choose to join the armed forces:

Q. What do the armed forces do for a living?
A. THEY GO TO WAR AND DIE.

Liberals constantly insist on shouting "will someone please think of the children", these guys arent children. Please stop calling them our children, our young boys, etc. There is no draft, Iraq is not Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree they are pretty young. i don't know much about this but earlier in history dudes 16 years old and older would go to war. now it's only 18 is the minimum that is pretty young, plus these dudes aren't the well educated ones they're hte opposite. maybe someone here who knows about military history could help us out on this topic?

[theBruiser500]

Good thread, am enjoying it. Limon I agree with just about everything you've said. But one problem here IMO are the questions, "do you self-censor yourself?" "do you support the troops?" - they are too vague and kind of meaningless. Better questions would be something like "if you disagree with someone do you just drop the subject? do you lie?", "do you want our troops in Iraq to die? do you value an American soilders life equally with an Iraqis? should the soilders who commit Abu Gharib like atrocities go to jail?" etc.

One reason I would "support" the troops is because they are mainly poor people being taken advantage of and tricked into doing something they don't know any better than to do. As far as the self censorship question, I'm in the same place NT and Diablo are, I won't lie but most of the time it's just pointless and irritating to debate with people. One thing I like to do with someone who is knowledgable on a subject is play devil's advocate, argue with them, and goad them into getting upset to learn what they know about a subect /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[limon]

if you disagree with someone do you just drop the subject? do you lie?" NO AND NO 95+% OF THE TIME

do you want our troops in Iraq to die? DONT CARE. I WANT THEM TO GROW SOME STONES AND GO AWOL. NOT SHOOT INNOCENT PEOPLE IN A PREEMPTIVE WAR AND SAY MY BOSS MADE ME DO IT.

do you value an American soilders life equally with an Iraqis? SURE

should the soilders who commit Abu Gharib like atrocities go to jail?"
YES, AND THEIR SUPERIORS SHOULD BE HUNG. RUMSFELD 1ST

One reason I would "support" the troops is because they are mainly poor people being taken advantage of and tricked into doing something they don't know any better than to do.
BY THIS LOGIC YOU SHOULD SUPPORT BLOODS AND CRIPS.

[Victor]

"but if you had lost a close relative on 9/11, you would possibly feel a little more respectful to those fighting to keep you safe and free. "

i dont think limon is that dumb. i feel sorry for those that are so dumb as to feel this way. but if i lost someone at 9/11 i would be absolutely livid that the death of my loved was was being used as justification and motivation for a completely unrelated, unjust and useless war.

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, w/ a caveat. you dont have to decide in the heat of battle when your life and the life of your buddies is on the line. but afterward, you do need the courage to say, waht i/we did was wrong and i will go no further. one of the few admirable things my father ever did was get drafted, go to vietnam and then go awol once he found out the truth. that takes courage. incinerating "gooks" w/ superior firepower is a cowardly act.

[/ QUOTE ]

On board with this concept. Not sure how I would act if thrust in the situation, but to me I would hope I had the stones to make the correct (imo) decision.

In general, I agree with Limon that people tend to take wishy-washy stances too often.

When did taking an "absolute" stance become such a bad thing? Of course most things are not black or white. But if there is enough information available to you, f'in man up and pick a side.

Though problems arise if the side you pick is proven over time to be the incorrect stance, and you aren't flexible enough intellectually to admit your mistake and change your views... I still respect those who make clear decisions and aren't afraid to express them (as long as they are girded by some real careful thought).

-Al

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
if you disagree with someone do you just drop the subject? do you lie?" NO AND NO 95+% OF THE TIME

do you want our troops in Iraq to die? DONT CARE. I WANT THEM TO GROW SOME STONES AND GO AWOL. NOT SHOOT INNOCENT PEOPLE IN A PREEMPTIVE WAR AND SAY MY BOSS MADE ME DO IT.

do you value an American soilders life equally with an Iraqis? SURE

should the soilders who commit Abu Gharib like atrocities go to jail?"
YES, AND THEIR SUPERIORS SHOULD BE HUNG. RUMSFELD 1ST

One reason I would "support" the troops is because they are mainly poor people being taken advantage of and tricked into doing something they don't know any better than to do.
BY THIS LOGIC YOU SHOULD SUPPORT BLOODS AND CRIPS.

[/ QUOTE ]

limon, those questions were just sample questions to show what type would be more helpful. what does "bloods and crips" mean?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yes, w/ a caveat. you dont have to decide in the heat of battle when your life and the life of your buddies is on the line. but afterward, you do need the courage to say, waht i/we did was wrong and i will go no further. one of the few admirable things my father ever did was get drafted, go to vietnam and then go awol once he found out the truth. that takes courage. incinerating "gooks" w/ superior firepower is a cowardly act.

[/ QUOTE ]

On board with this concept. Not sure how I would act if thrust in the situation, but to me I would hope I had the stones to make the correct (imo) decision.

In general, I agree with Limon that people tend to take wishy-washy stances too often.

When did taking an "absolute" stance become such a bad thing? Of course most things are not black or white. But if there is enough information available to you, f'in man up and pick a side.

Though problems arise if the side you pick is proven over time to be the incorrect stance, and you aren't flexible enough intellectually to admit your mistake and change your views... I still respect those who make clear decisions and aren't afraid to express them (as long as they are girded by some real careful thought).

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

im always happy to change my stance in the face of incontrovertable evidence (that includes thought experiments and logic problems that lead to only 1 conclusion) it actually feels great discovering something new. this happens about once a decade unfortunately. being convinced to call raises w/ any 2 cards to broadway in deepstack nl was the last revelation i can remember. another was learning to use "grease" in golf and offering the same to your opponents i always thought it was lame until i learned the hustle.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
what does "bloods and crips" mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, are you kidding? i take it you're not from america.

[gumpzilla]

limon: what uses of force do you view as legitimate? Were the operations against the Taliban, for example, legitimate in your opinion?

[CaptainNasty]

I find it pretty easy to not support the troops when I know that military service is voluntary.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
limon: what uses of force do you view as legitimate? Were the operations against the Taliban, for example, legitimate in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

self defense is legitimate. if someone has a gun pointed at you you can shoot but you cant say well we think he has a gun somwhere in his house but we have no proof, and the bullets cant reach us and the inspectors say otherwise but were gonna drive over and shoot him anyway. you also cant say hey you're kid is a criminal so were gonna kill the whole family. with great power comes great responsibility.

[Pudge714]

Reading this thread reminds me why I don't post or read politics. limon who generally comes off as fairly level headed individual is coming off as an extremist.

I agree with most of what KKF had to say.

[guids]

Bruiser,

your post must be a joke, I really thought you were much smarter than that, and could resists the propaganda, or are you just trying to feel better about yourself? Id say a number of those troops are better educated than yourself.

According to a comprehensive study of all enlistees for the years 1998-99 and 2003 that The Heritage Foundation just released, the typical recruit in the all-volunteer force is wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average 18- to 24-year-old citizen is. Indeed, for every two recruits coming from the poorest neighborhoods, there are three recruits coming from the richest neighborhoods.


f, for example, we consider the education of every recruit, 98% joined with high-school diplomas or better. By comparison, 75% of the general population meets that standard. Among all three-digit ZIP code areas in the USA in 2003 (one can study larger areas by isolating just the first three digits of ZIP codes), not one had a higher graduation rate among civilians than among its recruits.

n fact, since the 9/11 attacks, more volunteers have emerged from the middle and upper classes and fewer from the lowest-income groups. In 1999, both the highest fifth of the nation in income and the lowest fifth were slightly underrepresented among military volunteers. Since 2001, enlistments have increased in the top two-fifths of income levels but have decreased among the lowest fifth.

Allegations that recruiters are disproportionately targeting blacks also don't hold water. First, whites make up 77.4% of the nation's population and 75.8% of its military volunteers, according to our analysis of Department of Defense data.

Second, we explored the 100 three-digit ZIP code areas with the highest concentration of blacks, which range from 24.1% black up to 68.6%. These areas, which account for 14.6% of the adult population, produced 16.6% of recruits in 1999 and only 14.1% in 2003.

[Hoya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
limon: what uses of force do you view as legitimate? Were the operations against the Taliban, for example, legitimate in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

self defense is legitimate. if someone has a gun pointed at you you can shoot but you cant say well we think he has a gun somwhere in his house but we have no proof, and the bullets cant reach us and the inspectors say otherwise but were gonna drive over and shoot him anyway. you also cant say hey you're kid is a criminal so were gonna kill the whole family. with great power comes great responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what is your answer to the question that was asked?

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I have many stupid and irrational beliefs but i never let anyone know what they are becuase I know they are stupid and irrational, and I dont want to end up having people thinking Im a complete douche bag, like many are thinking about the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you just post a couple weeks ago that you don't care what anyone thinks about you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes mia, on a stupid message board i dont always tell the truth, and will use fiction to get in a passive agressive burn.



Honestly enough though, after the reading the article I do take the douche bag comment back, the author of the article is a smug hippy douche bag though, but a couple of his points are spot on, although in regards to Iraq, I dont think they apply. The soldiers/democrats/republicans all agreed that there were WMD, unfortuently it was too late and a war was already started, so the soldiers imo, are blameless in this regard. I dont think any solder should follow thier leaders blindlessly, but pulling out or going AWOL would do much much much more harm than good at any point during this war, so I support them.

[gumpzilla]

One thing I was going to say earlier but couldn't frame quite right is this. The Bloods and Crips argument about poor people with no other option is kinda cute, and not wholly without merit. But, I think one significant difference is that the Bloods and Crips presumably have no legitimate activities, whereas I think that most will agree that there are cases where there are legitimate uses for the military. So I don't think the comparison is entirely valid.

[guids]

Actually there are, if you get a chance, watch Bastards of the Party a docu on HBO, these two groups werent started entirely as traditional "street gangs", there were sects taht were started to ward off white teenagers in california that would go around beating up blacks in the 50/60s, and others that did a lot for the community.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually there are, if you get a chance, watch Bastards of the Party a docu on HBO, these two groups werent started entirely as traditional "street gangs", there were sects taht were started to ward off white teenagers in california that would go around beating up blacks in the 50/60s, and others that did a lot for the community.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's interesting, but I'd say what they started for and what they are now are probably very different beasts. I'd imagine that being a Republican now means something different than being a Republican in 1864, too.

[Boris]

Limon - You don't care if American troops die in Iraq? That's pretty effin sick. You should do the moral thing and move to another country. I'm also curious when was the last time you made a "moral" choice that would land you jail for a year or more.

[dethgrind]

Guids, could you post some links about those demographics for the troops? I was a bit surprised by that info and would like to read more.

[crookedhat99]

This argument is so silly because it centers around a pretty much meaningless phrase that has a lot of spite tied in with it. No one wants the troops to die. Some people want the rebels to die, some don't. Everyone supports the values we are trying to perpetuate through the war. It is disagreed upon whether this is the right way of perpetuating the values.

I think it's immature of limon to say 'I don't support the troops', because it's a misleading way of conveying his thoughts about the war in a way that he knows will incite people.

I also think it's ridiculous that politicians who don't support the war have to add the clause of supporting the troops.

[w_alloy]

Guids, that research is pretty amazing considering how much we hear about poor people and the military. It's also a pretty strong endorser of a few of Limon's points, who I disagree with for the most part but makes some pretty good points.

[crookedhat99]

wait, wow
"do you want our troops in Iraq to die? DONT CARE. "

America represents-democracy equality liberty etc

Prewar Iraq represents-no justice system womenhating dictatorship

Regaurdless of whether our reasons were justified for entering Iraq in the first place, now that we are there the rebels are fighting the troops, trying to kill them. Troops didn't go into Iraq with the intention of killing innocent people, they went in to kill a lifestyle and some bad ass mofos. Are Iraqis justified in fighting us because we invaded their country? No, because the values that they are fighting to protect are retarded.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
Guids, that research is pretty amazing considering how much we hear about poor people and the military. It's also a pretty strong endorser of a few of Limon's points, who I disagree with for the most part but makes some pretty good points.

[/ QUOTE ]


I will point out that it is from a conservative think tank that did the research, but there are tons more statistics out there from more unbiased sources. I do agree 100% that it adds credibility to limons standpoint.

[sledghammer]

guids,

I could very well be wrong, but isn't a hs diploma required to join the military? The other stats hold your point up though.

[guids]

I assumed it has somethign to do with GED's?

[UncleSalty]

[ QUOTE ]
America represents-democracy equality liberty etc

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Prewar Iraq represents-no justice system womenhating dictatorship

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Troops...went in to kill a lifestyle and some bad ass mofos. Are Iraqis justified in fighting us because we invaded their country? No, because the values that they are fighting to protect are retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a propagandist's wet dream.

[crookedhat99]

[ QUOTE ]


You are a propagandist's wet dream.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a problem w/ any of my points I'd like to hear it.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You are a propagandist's wet dream.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a problem w/ any of my points I'd like to hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make a serious argument that America's actions are really oriented towards the traditional symbolic values that you claim it represents.

[crookedhat99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You are a propagandist's wet dream.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a problem w/ any of my points I'd like to hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make a serious argument that America's actions are really oriented towards the traditional symbolic values that you claim it represents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying our foreign policy on a country sized scale is oriented towards our traditional symbolic values. I'm saying that domestic America does represent those symbolic values, Iraq represented different values, and whatever our reason for entering Iraq was, the fact that they are resisting our attempts at pushing our values unto them means that they (those resisting) suck. Since they suck, we should care about if American soldiers die more than if those resisting die.

What I mean is, the Iraqi rebels aren't justified in fighting back just because our reason for entering is wrong. Our reason for entering is none of their business provided their domestic values are polar to ours.

[Anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I DONT SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got to put you on the spot here as I have to hear your reasoning on this one. I promise not to turn this into anything more than just accepting your response.

[/ QUOTE ]

here is an intro to the subject. candy coated and simplistic but i dont want ot really get into it if most arent interested.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that you or it just sums up your opinion?

I want to reply more, but I said I wouldn't and I'll keep it that way /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

two quotes are spot on:

"I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken -- and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."

and

"The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."

much of the rest can be quibbled w/, added to or simply discarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

The quoted sections are 100% completely spot on and represent how I feel about the war & etc. to a high degree of accuracy.

[censored] 'support our troops, oppose the war.' Any man with a conscience who doesn't like what he's doing can quit at any time, even if at times his only choice is one slightly less terrible option over another.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying our foreign policy on a country sized scale is oriented towards our traditional symbolic values. I'm saying that domestic America does represent those symbolic values, Iraq represented different values, and whatever our reason for entering Iraq was, the fact that they are resisting our attempts at pushing our values unto them means that they (those resisting) suck. Since they suck, we should care about if American soldiers die more than if those resisting die.

What I mean is, the Iraqi rebels aren't justified in fighting back just because our reason for entering is wrong. Our reason for entering is none of their business provided their domestic values are polar to ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty bizarre way of looking at things. Anyway, the previous poster is right. Your belief that America represents these things independent of its actions seems to be the result of some hardcore propagandizing. At least the outcome is fairly indistinguishable.

[UncleSalty]

[ QUOTE ]
America represents-democracy equality liberty etc

[/ QUOTE ]

To whom? While I agree that these are the principles that the country was founded on, for the most part we are moving toward an increasing divide between the "haves" and "have nots." Regardless of whether you feel it has gotten harder to become self made in America without the benefit of a wealthy upbringing, you surely cannot argue that spreading "democracy, equality, liberty" are justifications for invading a foreign country.



[ QUOTE ]
Prewar Iraq represents-no justice system womenhating dictatorship

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess who put Sadaam Hussein in power?

[ QUOTE ]
Troops...went in to kill a lifestyle and some bad ass mofos. Are Iraqis justified in fighting us because we invaded their country? No, because the values that they are fighting to protect are retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Among the values they are fighting to protect are those that you so proudly claim for the United States. Of course they are justified in fighting us for invading their country. WE INVADED THEIR COUNTRY. Civilization and culture have been present in Iraq for THOUSANDS of years. Who are we to be so arrogant as to decide that we can thrust our own morality (ha!) and values upon another society?

I do not support the treatment of women as second class citizens or the suppression of free speech, but I certainly cannot condone invading, overthrowing, and occupying a country for financial and political reasons and then trying to justify it as some sort of moral crusade.

What bothers me most about people like you is not that you disagree with my opinion of the war and its origins. It's that you don't even seem to be aware that there might be more to the story than "Well gee, them there A-Rabs is not treatin' their wimmin too nice, why we oughta ride on in there and save the day. Oh, and lookey heere, while we're at it, look at all this oil we found. Oh, and it's a nice side benefit that we now have a strong military presence in the middle east. But really, it was about putting out that evil dictator. Really it was. USA! USA! USA!"

[UncleSalty]

[ QUOTE ]

What I mean is, the Iraqi rebels aren't justified in fighting back just because our reason for entering is wrong. Our reason for entering is none of their business provided their domestic values are polar to ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said, Adolph. I can see I'm wasting my time so I'll just quit now.

[theBruiser500]

before i continue reading your post i have to respond with a huge LOL to this "your post must be a joke, I really thought you were much smarter than that". why can't you just say "wow i strongly disagree" or if you want to be stronger "my respect for you goes down a lot after what you just said"

[guids]

Because Im a douche bag? I mean what do you want me to say? My respect for you didnt go down at all, I said what I was thinking at the time, in that I assumed from the way everyone posts about you on this forum that you are a worldly, smart fellow, but in this matter you just bought into a bunch of propaganda.

[crookedhat99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying our foreign policy on a country sized scale is oriented towards our traditional symbolic values. I'm saying that domestic America does represent those symbolic values, Iraq represented different values, and whatever our reason for entering Iraq was, the fact that they are resisting our attempts at pushing our values unto them means that they (those resisting) suck. Since they suck, we should care about if American soldiers die more than if those resisting die.

What I mean is, the Iraqi rebels aren't justified in fighting back just because our reason for entering is wrong. Our reason for entering is none of their business provided their domestic values are polar to ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty bizarre way of looking at things. Anyway, the previous poster is right. Your belief that America represents these things independent of its actions seems to be the result of some hardcore propagandizing. At least the outcome is fairly indistinguishable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm absolutely not saying America represents these things independent of their actions. I'm trying to justify valuing an American soldier's life over an Iraqi rebel's life. Since I, apparently, am having trouble, how would you justify it?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
Limon - You don't care if American troops die in Iraq? That's pretty effin sick. You should do the moral thing and move to another country. I'm also curious when was the last time you made a "moral" choice that would land you jail for a year or more.

[/ QUOTE ]

let me expand on the dont care comment. i dont want anybody to die but i dont support their decision to be there so i feel very little pity/remorse for them. i feel as much as i would for a bankrobber shot by police. americans are invaders in that country, the iraqi insurgents are the home team. less than 3% of the insurgents are foriegn fighters. these people are defending themselves on their own soil just as you or i would if we were invaded by a country that thought it should impose its morals and values on us. when i see 2 mothers crying, one american next to a flag draped coffin on iraqi next to the rubble that was her home carrting a dead baby i feel much worse for the iraqi, she had no choice...the americans do.

btw, i amke many moral choices that would land me in jail. including having the guns i want, ingesting the plants i want, getting the massage i want, making the bets i want and, when the time comes, ending my life on my own terms. (ruby ridge style probably). why would i leave? im more american than you can handle.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading this thread reminds me why I don't post or read politics. limon who generally comes off as fairly level headed individual is coming off as an extremist.

I agree with most of what KKF had to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

when was i ever level headed? i put the x in xtreme boyeeee. i guess im just a nutcase like suntzu or ben franklin.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]


The quoted sections are 100% completely spot on and represent how I feel about the war & etc. to a high degree of accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% completely? That sounds like a lot. I think the quotes reflect the dimness of the speaker.
This thread validates the idea that people act out on the net in ways they otherwise wouldn't -- in this case, it is apparently expressing their true feelings about some subject where IRL the ensuing conflict would be less enjoyable.

[ QUOTE ]

[censored] 'support our troops, oppose the war.' Any man with a conscience who doesn't like what he's doing can quit at any time, even if at times his only choice is one slightly less terrible option over another.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if quitting violates an oath he took, and through the taking of which he knowingly surrendered the option of quitting due to policy preferences?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

[censored] 'support our troops, oppose the war.' Any man with a conscience who doesn't like what he's doing can quit at any time, even if at times his only choice is one slightly less terrible option over another.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if quitting violates an oath he took, and through the taking of which he knowingly surrendered the option of quitting due to policy preferences?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it seems to me that the consequences of this line of reasoning are that the only moral possibility is to not have a standing army, which seems impractical.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
limon: what uses of force do you view as legitimate? Were the operations against the Taliban, for example, legitimate in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

self defense is legitimate. if someone has a gun pointed at you you can shoot but you cant say well we think he has a gun somwhere in his house but we have no proof, and the bullets cant reach us and the inspectors say otherwise but were gonna drive over and shoot him anyway. you also cant say hey you're kid is a criminal so were gonna kill the whole family. with great power comes great responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what is your answer to the question that was asked?

[/ QUOTE ]

here ill continue the analogy. if you neighbor blew up your mailbox, killed your dog then told you he was going to kill your family. then you peaked over his fence and saw his family in black outfits climbing on monkey bars chanting "death to neighbor" youd be justified in jumping the fence and kicking some ass. you would not be justified in then going 2 doors down to someone elses house and kicking their ass just so they wouldnt think about trying something later.

[crookedhat99]

[ QUOTE ]

What bothers me most about people like you is not that you disagree with my opinion of the war and its origins. It's that you don't even seem to be aware that there might be more to the story than "Well gee, them there A-Rabs is not treatin' their wimmin too nice, why we oughta ride on in there and save the day. Oh, and lookey heere, while we're at it, look at all this oil we found. Oh, and it's a nice side benefit that we now have a strong military presence in the middle east. But really, it was about putting out that evil dictator. Really it was. USA! USA! USA!"

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf 'people like me'. I don't have an opinion on the war you flaming douchebag, I don't follow it nearly enough to confidently talk about it one way or the other. With my previous arguments all I was trying to do was justify a feeling I have. That feeling is that I care when an American soldier dies, I don't care at all when an Iraqi insurgent dies.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

[censored] 'support our troops, oppose the war.' Any man with a conscience who doesn't like what he's doing can quit at any time, even if at times his only choice is one slightly less terrible option over another.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if quitting violates an oath he took, and through the taking of which he knowingly surrendered the option of quitting due to policy preferences?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it seems to me that the consequences of this line of reasoning are that the only moral possibility is to not have a standing army, which seems impractical.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true. the oath/military code of conduct has outs. outs which should be exorcized when asked to kill in a preemptive, unilateral, war of choice. some brave sevicemen have already gone this route. those are troops i can support!

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it seems to me that the consequences of this line of reasoning are that the only moral possibility is to not have a standing army, which seems impractical.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true. the oath/military code of conduct has outs. outs which should be exercized when asked to kill in a preemptive, unilateral, war of choice. some brave sevicemen have already gone this route. those are troops i can support!

[/ QUOTE ]

Those people are getting military benefits under false pretenses, I would argue. I agree that it is probably a more moral decision, but still less moral than not agreeing to sign up in the first place. EDIT: Saying "I'll serve if I happen to agree with the war" seems to me functionally equivalent to not having a standing army.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]

not true. the oath/military code of conduct has outs. outs which should be exercized when asked to kill in a preemptive, unilateral, war of choice. some brave sevicemen have already gone this route. those are troops i can support!

[/ QUOTE ]

The Code of Conduct is a prescription for behaviour if you are POW. As for your comments about the Military Oath they again reflect your passion more than your reason.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

not true. the oath/military code of conduct has outs. outs which should be exercized when asked to kill in a preemptive, unilateral, war of choice. some brave sevicemen have already gone this route. those are troops i can support!

[/ QUOTE ]

The Code of Conduct is a prescription for behaviour if you are POW. As for your comments about the Military Oath they again reflect your passion more than your reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

my reason comes from here. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-officer5feb05,0,1444479.story

a real hero, worthy of support. i got my reasons from things i read about his defense not from passion.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

not true. the oath/military code of conduct has outs. outs which should be exercized when asked to kill in a preemptive, unilateral, war of choice. some brave sevicemen have already gone this route. those are troops i can support!

[/ QUOTE ]

The Code of Conduct is a prescription for behaviour if you are POW. As for your comments about the Military Oath they again reflect your passion more than your reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

my reason comes from here. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-officer5feb05,0,1444479.story

a real hero, worthy of support.

[/ QUOTE ]

His "out" is court-martial and time in prison for violating his oath-- so it is not an "out" from the oath.

But congrats to him if he considers his disobedience a moral obligation and has the courage to take the consequences.

As a thought exercise you might try to imagine the existence of someone every bit as morally serious who didn't see such a moral obligation. Or not...

[Boris]

The Iraqi insurgents are the home team? Uh no. And when it comes to choices, the insurgents could easily stop the violence by putting down their weapons. Do you really think the situation for the peaceful Iraqi civilian will improve if the US pulled out tomorrow?

BTW - I was against the war before we invaded. I never believed the WMD BS and anyone who did is a sucker. That being said, I can see an argument that replacing the Hussein regime would be strategically beneficial to the US. I also believe that when making any kind of choice, be it moral or political, you deal with the facts as they exist. So despite what you may think about the original decision to go to war, the fact is that we are deeply entrenched right now. And to pull out immediately would cause widespread death and destruction. The death count would be far higher than what we can expect from further US occupation in Iraq.

[El Diablo]

All,

Please keep focused on arguments/debate rather than flames. If you don't have anything to say besides "that is stupid" then don't write it. There's still some good discussion going on here, so let's keep that going.

Posts with personal insults from here forward will be deleted.

[limon]

"His "out" is court-martial and time in prison for violating his oath-- so it is not an "out" from the oath."

this has not been decided yet. in fact the govt. is scared shytless of this guy. his illegal war/illegal orders defense is compelling.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
"His "out" is court-martial and time in prison for violating his oath-- so it is not an "out" from the oath."

this has not been decided yet. in fact the govt. is scared shytless of this guy. his illegal war/illegal orders defense is compelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe there's a prop bet in here?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"His "out" is court-martial and time in prison for violating his oath-- so it is not an "out" from the oath."

this has not been decided yet. in fact the govt. is scared shytless of this guy. his illegal war/illegal orders defense is compelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe there's a prop bet in here?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. i get odds. considering this administration considers the constitution toilet paper i cant trust that there will be a just outcome in accordance w/ the law. 20-1 he walks?

[crookedhat99]

[ QUOTE ]
you surely cannot argue that spreading "democracy, equality, liberty" are justifications for invading a foreign country.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you knew no country would put up a fight, would you support the USA taking over the world?

*disclaimer* I don't have a concrete opinion on the subject, I'm just trying to spark an argument so I can understand the topic better

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]
The Iraqi insurgents are the home team? Uh no. And when it comes to choices, the insurgents could easily stop the violence by putting down their weapons. Do you really think the situation for the peaceful Iraqi civilian will improve if the US pulled out tomorrow?

BTW - I was against the war before we invaded. I never believed the WMD BS and anyone who did is a sucker. That being said, I can see an argument that replacing the Hussein regime would be strategically beneficial to the US. I also believe that when making any kind of choice, be it moral or political, you deal with the facts as they exist. So despite what you may think about the original decision to go to war, the fact is that we are deeply entrenched right now. And to pull out immediately would cause widespread death and destruction. The death count would be far higher than what we can expect from further US occupation in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with you about the death count being higher if we leave. It isn't going to get better if we stay, so it is just delaying the inevitable. Here is an interview with someone who knows much more than me:

General William Odom interview (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=d7f52e21-cf46-4115-b397-ed1dc70fcdab)

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guids, that research is pretty amazing considering how much we hear about poor people and the military. It's also a pretty strong endorser of a few of Limon's points, who I disagree with for the most part but makes some pretty good points.

[/ QUOTE ]


I will point out that it is from a conservative think tank that did the research, but there are tons more statistics out there from more unbiased sources. I do agree 100% that it adds credibility to limons standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

the plot thickens.

[limon]

"I think it's immature of limon to say 'I don't support the troops', because it's a misleading way of conveying his thoughts about the war in a way that he knows will incite people."

sorta true but i also didnt want to write a dissertation if i wasnt going to get any decent responses/debate. if the discussion was good i knew id have plenty of time expound.

[fluffpop62]

[ QUOTE ]
Limon - I lost all respect for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until you join the military and make the decision disobey a lawful order, or the day you become a prominent politician, your lack of support for our troops can be described as nothing but cowardly and physically nauseating. You aren't doing anything to change the aspects of the war that seem to bother you so much, so your opinions are less then valid and frankly, command no respect.

While I agree that yellow ribbons back home do nothing for the troops that are away, they do serve to raise awareness and remind those not deployed that there are people fighting in the name of our country. This can serve as initiative to donate to causes that do support our troops by sending care packages and letters. There are bad seeds in every group of people. Just like asians that drive poorly will be much more noticeable then asians that drive well, soldiers that are scarred by war and act in a way that you would describe as immoral will be on the news much more then those receiving medals. Not everyone is accepted into the military; as a matter of fact, 60% of people my age (20) are not even eligible to enlist because of the stringent requirements held by the US military. Just as the crazy astronaut made news because she drove across country in her diapers, there are going to be crazy soldiers who slip through the cracks. I'd love for you to come visit me on Tuesday mornings and talk to some of the 80-odd kids that have already been to Iraq more then once. These aren't bad people, nor are they stupid for wanting to support their country.

I'm absolutely appalled that people like you and the LA Times journalist exist. To criticize something that you have no intention of changing, and then to imply that people who signed up to defend your country are jeopardizing your freedom is ludicrous.