# Bricker: Got A Second? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 23, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343 "2004-11-23T20:15:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/401 "2004-12-13T03:25:06Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The term “containment” refers only to Iraq. Nobody uses that term to refer to (corrected by Scylla) “Terrorism” I did. I put terrorism into the sentence when I said it. > [@](#): > > This whole thing started because **Scylla** was trying to assert that W had inherited an “unstable situation” in Iraq. An assertion that was rightly called bullshit by such alacritous posters as me. The simple assertions don’t cut it. You can call blue “black,” but it doesn’t make it so. Just as I referred to terrorism despite your insistence to the contrary when the sentence I wrote is write in front of your face, and open shooting war does not equate with stability. > [@](#): > > An attempt to then bring in al Qaeda is just a lame grasping at straws. Not at all. Iraq and Al Qaeda **are** connected. It really can’t be denied. It doesn’t matter whether or not they were working together or in concert. That’s not the important connection. The important connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq is us, The United States. They are both our enemies. They both operate in the Mideast. They are both threats. Our ability and how we deal with one, effects our ability and how we deal with the other. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/402 "2004-12-13T03:32:04Z")
Interesting. I googled “elucidator wise ass” and got 12 hits. The funny thing is, I think at least a couple of them were hits on our very own guy. **’Lucy** , have you ever posted at the Washington Monthly site? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/403 "2004-12-13T03:36:25Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Not at all. Iraq and Al Qaeda **are** connected. It really can’t be denied. It doesn’t matter whether or not they were working together or in concert. That’s not the important connection. > > The important connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq is us, The United States. They are both our enemies. They both operate in the Mideast. They are both threats. Our ability and how we deal with one, effects our ability and how we deal with the other. Wow…just wow. Iraq wasn’t our enemy but that’s a trivial objection. I’m just amazed at the rhetorical gymnastic it too to draw that “connection.” I guess North Korea and the Taliban were connected as well? ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/404 "2004-12-13T04:04:37Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > “Containment” Is a term which was very commonly used by politicos in conjunction with Iraq. It was not used for terrororism. You will not be able to find a cite for any politician citing the need to “contain terrorism.” I guarantee you. What’s your guarantee worth? $1000? $100? $1? Absolutely nothing? I guess I’ll find out. Here’s an article, from the New York Times, discussing the plan of your hero, Sen. Kerry, to contain terror. > [@](#): > > The Democratic presidential candidate offered up a detailed strategy to **contain terrorism** , and called for more attention to the politics, culture and economics of the broad Islamic world, and more cooperation with allies to fight the growth of terrorism within some Islamic factions and communities. Cite: [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/politics/campaign/24CND-KERR.html?ex=1103000400&en=a2ca7fd11adfb3c6&ei=5070](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/politics/campaign/24CND-KERR.html?ex=1103000400&en=a2ca7fd11adfb3c6&ei=5070) You really are the epigramic unarmed man, aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/405 "2004-12-13T04:07:54Z")
Congratulations. You found one. I’m still right. The word was associated with Iraq, not with terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/406 "2004-12-13T04:19:10Z")
I found hundreds and am confident I could find thousands if I needed to… I liked that one the best, because the quote was from your guy, from the leading left of center newspaper in the US. Just for the sake of balance, here’s one more, from Bush: [http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2001/pa021301.htm](http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2001/pa021301.htm) I’m done, at least for the night. Anyone else care to play Whack-a-Diogenes? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/407 "2004-12-13T04:37:26Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Iraq wasn’t our enemy but that’s a trivial objection. How do I argue with this? Not our enemy? My bad, I just figured with all the shooting and killing and the policy of regime change, and the open hostility, that they were maybe our enemy. But you said they weren’t. So… [quote[I’m just amazed at the rhetorical gymnastic it too to draw that “connection.”[/quote] It’s simple logic. > [@](#): > > I guess North Korea and the Taliban were connected as well? Yes, by us. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/408 "2004-12-13T08:38:18Z")
**Random** : > [@](#): > > _Yes. We are. Your argument is silly._ No. You are not. No it isn’t. I’m an expat, by the way. > [@](#): > > _It is perfectly proper for a citizen of a nation with an elected government to use “we”, “us” or “our” as shorthand pronouns when describing the actions of that elected goverment. “We entered WWII in 1941”; “Our Air Force bombed the ball bearing plant supplying the German war machine”; and Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor" are all proper (albeit slightly informal) usages._ I’m not talking here about whether **Scylla’s** usage is grammatically proper, or proper within the conventions of standard usage. I fully aware that one can wallow in jingoist, nationalist sentiment and lay claim to shared responsibility for all sorts of things: we sent the first man to the moon, we fought the Germans, and so forth. Rather, I’m saying that this standard use of the word ”we” doesn’t reflect anything of import in the real world. You might think that ”clearing the mountain” is a good thing, you might support those who are ”clearing the mountain,” etc. – but unless you’re actually doing the work, then _you_, personally, _aren’t_ ”clearing the mountain,” and your use of the pronoun ”we” is nothing other than empty formalism. Or, to put it more [eloquently](http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/masters.html) (at the risk of sounding maudlin): _Come you masters of war You that build all the guns You that build the death planes You that build the big bombs You that hide behind walls You that hide behind desks I just want you to know I can see through your masks_ Talking big about how much you support the war effort while sitting behind the wheel of your SUV and sending America’s less fortunate off to fight doesn’t give you the right to use the word ”we.” Period. **Scylla** : > [@](#): > > _I have every right, and it’s none of your business or concern._ Sure. Let me know when you’ve personally put your ass on the line for these policies you seem to believe in and I might actually develop at least a little respect for your convictions. Me, I imagine a few days eating dust on patrol in Iraq and friend **Scylla** would probably be as vehemently against the invasion as anyone on these boards, but who knows? Regarding ”containment” and ”deterrence”: First off, I don’t think one should dismiss **Scylla’s** assertion that the situation in Iraq was ”unstable” so lightly. Depends a bit on what one intends with the word ”unstable,” but relations between the US and Iraq certainly weren’t happy. Otherwise I can’t tell who is arguing for what in this round of the debate, so I’ll simply add my 2 cents. It is argued that terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda are _uncontainable_ and _undeterrable_. Unlike nation-states (such as Iraq), terrorist organizations have no territory to defend, no population to protect, and no infrastructure (such as roads, dams, and buildings) to lose in the event of war. In other words, these organizations have nothing that can be ”held hostage” in a balance of terror. An intractable, fanatic enemy, willing to die for his/her cause, with no home or hearth, is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to deter. Clinton’s clumsy efforts at containing and deterring al-Qaeda during the 90s provides useful historical context. He retaliated against bin-Laden by first bombing an aspirin factory (launching a unilateral, unprovoked attack against a neutral country, the Sudan), and followed that up – if a remember correctly – with cruise missiles over Afghanistan, wherein very expensive military hardware was employed to destroy about 40 dollars worth canvas tents. Neither of those actions had the slightest deterrent effect on al-Qaeda, however, as 9/11 demonstrated with horrifying clarity. This isn’t meant to imply that containment and deterrence are totally useless in TWAT, especially when dealing with other nation-states and state-supported terrorism. It simply means that since 9/11 most policy analysts agree that these tools are rather obsolete, and of limited use. **Random’s** google page is a bit misleading. _Some_ of the papers it turns up discuss TWAT in terms of containment, but some of them mention a policy of containment only to specifically reject it – like this [one](http://www.thepalmerpress.com/rieas21.html): > [@](#): > > \*\*Containing the Soviet Union and fighting terrorism are strikingly different undertakings. Kennan examined the behavior of a sovereign state with defined borders, an established populace, a recognized government, and an official ideology. Terrorism, by contrast, does not operate within clear boundaries or abide by diplomatic niceties. > > Containment cannot deal with such an elusive adversary. But neither is war a fully adequate concept for addressing terrorism as an ongoing challenge. Terror is the tactic, not the adversary itself. To deal with terrorism over the longer term, we must go beyond the symptoms of the problem to address its underlying causes which is precisely where Kennan’s strategic logic takes us.\*\* (The author goes on to argue convincingly that while we can’t rely on containment, the idea that we can simply beat our opponents into submission is equally hopeless in the long run.) Anyway, Bush outlines his strategy of _preventative_ war in NSS 2002, and makes it pretty clear that his administration no longer believes a policy of simple containment will work. So in that sense, **Diogenes** is correct: the Bush administration has striven to delink the concepts of terrorism and deterrence. After all, the argument that terrorism can’t be contained or deterred served as one of major pretexts for the invasion of Iraq. That doesn’t mean that one can’t find random politicians talking about ”containing terrorism,” or newspaper articles that mention the idea. I’m not sure what such examples prove, really. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/409 "2004-12-13T10:38:58Z")
**Scylla** : I find your analogy between renovating a kitchen, on the one hand, and invading Iraq, on the other, intriguing. I’m going to play with it a bit; hope you don’t mind. I’ll repost it for the sake of the readers’ convenience: > [@](#): > > \*Allow me a metaphor: > > Clinton inherits a kitchen. There are some rusty pipes, broken appliances, peeling wall paper, and linoleum full of wholes. On top of that there’s maybe a firetrap by the old oven. Clinton’s strategy was to keep an eye on the oven and basically live in the kitchen as it is. Things gradually got a little more decrepit, but most things were serviceable. > > Bush takes over the kitchen is warned about the oven, and all of a sudden the dishwasher starts an electrical fire that does even more damage. So Bush decides to remodel. The remodelling is a huge mess. It costs tons of money. Problems that were only minor come to the forefront. People are unhappy with the remodelling plan and think it could be better. Mistakes are naturally made and have to be rectified. > > Now people who look at the kitchen and favor the “live with it” strategy point at what a huge unholy mess it is, how much it costs, all the problems that occur, and they blame it on Bush. Things were a lot better with Clinton. The kitchen was serviceable. > > People who favor the remodelling strategy, are focussed on the goal and beleive that having a safe and serviceable kitchen is worth the hassle, and danger and cost of the remodel. > > So, when you point to the Chalabi thing and say “look at that plaster, look at that plumbing. What a mess! This is your fault!” I say “No, we tore out the wall and look at what we found. We have to fix that, too.” > > In the course of remodelling your kitchen, your basement may get trashed as work may have to be done there to run electrical lines, fix plumbing. > > When you undertake such a project, it is inevitable that things will get a lot, lot worse before they get better. As always, the tear out is quick. The rebuilding is slow and difficult.\* Lakoff argues that people tend to generalize from their idea of what a family **should** be to how they think society as whole should be constructed. This is the reason, he claims, that political convictions tend to be immune to factual argument. Your analogy provides an excellent example of Lakoff’s theory in action. For what could possibly be more domestic, or more related to one’s intimate family life, than renovating one’s kitchen? In the analogy you present we see a counterpoint between two figures, Clinton and Bush. Clinton appears to represent something akin to the “Nurturing Father,” a figure who seeks to maintain a rather unsatisfactory status-quo. Bush, by contrast, represents the “Strict Father,” a man of action who finds the status quo unacceptable, and sets about immediately refurbishing his dilapidated kitchen. (He tolerates no holes in his linoleum!) Lakoff would probably argue that while at one level you’re talking about Clinton and Bush, at another level you’re dealing with, and attempting to resolve, a personal conflict involving your own family, your relationship to your own father as a strong or weak man, and your own role as strong or weak father. This deeper level, however, is primarily unconscious, irrational, and emotional. In particular it is a level of private unconscious fantasy as opposed to shared reality. A good father, you seem to say, would never let his family live in a run-down kitchen – why, the place almost caught fire! Even if it costs a lot of money, and turns out to be considerably more trouble than anticipated, we must repair our home. This is the underlying phantasy. In a moment we’ll see how it stacks up to reality. In the same way that a good father fixes his dangerous kitchen, you argue, Bush must fix the Middle East. We shouldn’t be surprised that it has turned out to be more work than expected: remodelling work _always_ turns out to be more trouble than originally planned. And sure, sometimes things go astray, workers don’t show up when they’re supposed to, and so on. But the good, strict father knows that this work must be done, and with his focussed discipline he will eventually finish the job. In short, it seems to me that your analogy provides strong evidence that you _do_ tend to generalize from your ideas of how a family, and in this case a father, should act, to how a president should act. And it also seems to me that if you had a different unconscious model of (or relation to) the good father – say, a father who valued understanding complex situations rather than merely acting upon them – then your political opinions would also be different. What’s also interesting to me are the ways in which your analogy fails to correspond to the actual situation in Iraq. For example, you write, _”Clinton inherits a kitchen,”_ in a completely unproblematic fashion. There is no nuance here whatsoever. Obviously, Clinton owns the kitchen, and it his to remodel (or not) as he see fit. No one else has a claim to the kitchen. No one else uses the kitchen or lives in the kitchen. It’s a part of his, and our, home. In your analogy Clinton, and later Bush, have an unquestioned right to renovate the kitchen at their whim. Yet neither Clinton nor Bush own, or have ”inherited,” the Middle East. The Middle East is not a part of our home, that we can remodel at will. It belongs to someone else. The remodelling is hard, necessary work, but in your analogy, no one suffers or dies. Human beings are reduced to faulty plumbing fixtures, in need of repair or replacement. That certainly makes the whole issue much, much _tidier_, don’t you think? You then compare Chalabi to the unexpected discovery that there’s something wrong with the plaster or plumbing. _“No no!”_ you seem to say. _“The Bush administration didn’t know he was a crook when they hired him – it came as a complete surprise, one of those sorts of things that always pops up during a remodelling project!”_ Yet as has been pointed out to you several times now, and as you have yourself agreed, Chalabi came as no surprise. He was a known crook from the very beginning. Finally, notice the absence in your analogy of anything that could be related to the major ongoing scandal regarding the invasion, namely, “WMDs:” _Bush claims there are giant, man-eating cockroaches living in the walls. His family stares at him in disbelief. He sends an army into the kitchen, they rip down walls and tear out the plumbing. No cockroaches. “Oh well,” says Bush, “we needed to renovate the kitchen anyway.”_ No? Nothing like that? Nothing at all? All in all, an excellent example of framing the issues in a way that makes your point of view seem imminently reasonable, as long as one accepts your presuppositions. Unfortunately the underlying phantasy that seems to inform your view has only a tenuous contact with the real situation in the Middle East. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/410 "2004-12-13T12:48:04Z")
> [@Random](#): > > I found hundreds and am confident I could find thousands if I needed to… I liked that one the best, because the quote was from your guy, from the leading left of center newspaper in the US. Perhaps just a nitpick, but it happens often enough that it is annoying. The quote was not from Kerry. The quote was from a newspaper reporter writing a story about Kerry. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/411 "2004-12-13T13:15:31Z")
You’re swinging in the right direction, **Svin** , but the bat ain’t connecting with the target. You make the point that the deaths of the Iraqis don’t seem to matter much in **Scylla** ’s calculus. I’d dispute that, and say that they do. The difference is that you view the deaths negatively, and **Scylla** views them positively. You’re also sort of on the right track with **Scylla** ’s father figure problems. But it goes back a [generation further](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2798796): > [@Scylla](#): > > And then I got a little bit older and I learned that maybe Grandpa **wasn’t** so crazy after all. Public school was getting bad and maybe I understood a little bit about the scary monsters that niggers really could be. There **were** big scary black kids, and they were monstrous and evil, and mean, and they **were** all black and you couldn’t fight them or do anything. They weren’t like me or my friends or Amanda or our old neighbors, at all. Maybe there really were niggers after all. ( **Scylla** ’s emphasis in the original) To **Scylla** , the Iraqis are scary monsters. Just as if they were, like, black or something. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/412 "2004-12-13T13:37:56Z")
**Dio** : In the post directly after that OP, **Scylla** writes: > [@](#): > > _I’ve been wanting to right this for a while, and I’m not sure I got it right. If the language is offensive I apologize. I hope it’s clear what I think of my grandfathers’ attitudes, and that there can be no apology or excuse for them._ Don’t you think using **Scylla’s** open and heartfelt account of his early confusion regarding matters of race against him – and purposefully misrepresenting them as well – is hitting a little bit below the belt? Anyway, for the sake of clarity, I’m not just pointing the finger at **Scylla**. _My_ childhood experiences also undoubtedly affect my sense of how a family should be, and probably carry over into my political convictions as well. I merely thought that **Scylla’s** analogy was a particularly explicit example of the principle in action. After reading the linked OP, I could probably analyze his attitude even more deeply, but to do so publicly, on a message board, would be unethical in the extreme. I’m simply not going there. Finally, note to self: never, _never_ publish private information on a public message board. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/413 "2004-12-13T13:48:16Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > To **Scylla** , the Iraqis are scary monsters. Just as if they were, like, black or something. Absolutely despicable. In the thread you quoted, **Scylla** made clear what his actual attitudes are. In the particular post you quoted, he was walking the reader through his discoveries as he grew up, and for you to quote that bit as thogh it represents something about the here and now that is racist is absolutely contemptible. Which, coming from you, **Desmostylus** , is par for the course. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/414 "2004-12-13T14:56:42Z")
Green herrings. If military action is necessary and prudent, it makes no real difference if the advocate of such action is grabbing a rifle and roaring to the front, or is the mildest and meekest of Milquetoast. It is what it is. In this particular instance, of course, it isn’t. A similar caveat applies to the insinuation of racism. Its not that **Scylla** holds the lives of brown-skinned people less dear than he should, but that he holds human lives in general less dear than I would prefer. And finally, the kitchen remodeling metaphor only works if the initial exposure of pipes, etc. is obtained by the injudicious application of dynamite, the necessity of destroying the kitchen in order to save it, or at least to prevent its availability to giant mutant cockroaches. To sum up: **Scylla’s** approval of aggressive war on the presumption of evil intent on the part of target is not cowardly nor racist. What it is is batshit crazy. I point this out only in an effort to be scrupulously fair. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/415 "2004-12-13T15:17:03Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **Dio** : > > In the post directly after that OP, **Scylla** writes:Don’t you think using **Scylla’s** open and heartfelt account of his early confusion regarding matters of race against him – and purposefully misrepresenting them as well – is hitting a little bit below the belt? > > Anyway, for the sake of clarity, I’m not just pointing the finger at **Scylla**. _My_ childhood experiences also undoubtedly affect my sense of how a family should be, and probably carry over into my political convictions as well. I merely thought that **Scylla’s** analogy was a particularly explicit example of the principle in action. > > After reading the linked OP, I could probably analyze his attitude even more deeply, but to do so publicly, on a message board, would be unethical in the extreme. I’m simply not going there. > > Finally, note to self: never, _never_ publish private information on a public message board. That wasn’t me, that was **Demo**. **Scylla’s** no racist. He’s wrong most of the time but he’s not a racist.\*\*. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/416 "2004-12-13T16:02:27Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Rather, I’m saying that this standard use of the word ”we” doesn’t reflect anything of import in the real world. You might think that ”clearing the mountain” is a good thing, you might support those who are ”clearing the mountain,” etc. – but unless you’re actually doing the work, then _you_, personally, _aren’t_ ”clearing the mountain,” and your use of the pronoun ”we” is nothing other than empty formalism. > > Talking big about \*\*how much you support the war effort while sitting behind the wheel of your SUV and sending America’s less fortunate off to fight doesn’t give you the right to use the word ”we.” Period. \*\* > **Scylla** :Sure. > > **Let me know when you’ve personally put your ass on the line for these policies you seem to believe in and I might actually develop at least a little respect for your convictions**. Me, I imagine a few days eating dust on patrol in Iraq and friend **Scylla** would probably be as vehemently against the invasion as anyone on these boards, but who knows? No, nothing in “your world” can match anything said here. Since I don’t own an SUV your argument is debunked. Flat out. I’m also laid off, a Bush voter and a GOP contributor. \ **Mr. Svinlesha** , you asked for someone to put his ass on the line? OK, but give me a line first. In the US we have a volunteer military. Some join to serve the US, some join for job training, some join for tuition to college. Whatever the reason for joining, they joined. There is first and foremost, no matter how much you hate it, the obligation that you do what is asked of you in time of peace or in time of war. The US military branches are NOT an easy way to get a free college education. The tuition is a benefit you get for signing your name to a contract that says you will follow whatever orders are given. Also, the military isn’t a free tech school. You may get the training and degree (and I hope you do) I would love to get my pharmacist degree for free, but I’m too old to join the services. So I will add to my $20 grand debt getting the training needed. Free from being shot at barring a terrorist attack. This is what I plan to do. Now maybe a soldier can tell you what he feels about all this. I put more stock in [this](http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/editorial/10404072.htm) letter _first one_ than anything seen earlier. I challenge anyone to refute the letter cited. (Again, it’s the first of three) ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/417 "2004-12-13T16:17:49Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > To **Scylla** , the Iraqis are scary monsters. Just as if they were, like, black or something. I can no longer ever be upset with you. No matter what I say or do from here on out, there will always be one Doper that is an even a bigger douchebag, donkey-punching, goat-feltching. fucktard, ass-bag I will always have to look up to. Congrats\*\* Desmo\*\*, you’re my new hero. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/418 "2004-12-13T16:25:25Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > I can no longer ever be upset with you. No matter what I say or do from here on out, there will always be one Doper that is an even a bigger douchebag, donkey-punching, goat-feltching. fucktard, ass-bag I will always have to look up to. > Congrats\*\* Desmo\*\*, you’re my new hero. :rolleyes: You may give him too much credit. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/419 "2004-12-13T16:54:06Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > You may give him too much credit. > Daniel Ya know, as much as I like a good fight, it does seem too easy. Talk me down from the ledge! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/420 "2004-12-13T16:58:57Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Ya know, as much as I like a good fight, it does seem too easy. Talk me down from the ledge! All I’m saying is, as annoying as **desmo** can be, I kind of see it as an intense rivalry betewen the two of you. I doubt either of you will ever achieve a definitive victory. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343.md?page=22)