self censorship

[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.