I’m also against the war, but I thought chula’s comments were out of line. Airman Doors has voluntarily chosen to serve his country. No matter why he did so, whether it was out of genuine patriotism, a desire to get money for college, or even a chance at riding in one of those really cool jet fighters, or anything else (all of those are pure speculation, and the last was one of my reasons for trying to join the Air Force), he has chosen to do so. Even if he was tired of fighting with weapons, the Air Force isn’t going to let him out of that committment that easily.
My worries about how the war will affect me are relatively mild. I worry that the economy will stay bad, meaning it will take even longer to find a job, I’ll miss a few long weekends I’ve been looking forward to, and, if worst comes to worst, I’ll have to move back in with my parents. The war could Airman Doors affect by killing him, leaving his young son fatherless before he’s a year old (sorry if this is sounding overly melodramatic). He’s got much better reasons than I do to be afraid.
Chula, what good did your words do? Airman Doors can’t bail out now, even if he wanted to, and actions like yours aren’t exactly likely to give him or anyone else more reasons to oppose the war. Just look at this post by King Rat in IMHO.
Airman Doors is doing what I wish I could do, what I’m not allowed to do, what I am prevented from doing, in serving my country. I wish I was in his place, I wish I could help take part of that responsibility. I might personally oppose the war, but I respect the fact that people are willing to put their nuts on the block for the rest of us and abide by the will of the public.
And if he’s tired of arguing the merits of the specific actions here, I don’t blame him. They’re complicated actions, with muddled results and uncertain consequences, not even a certified policy genius like Condi Rice could predict them with 100% accuracy. It’s honest to admit that we just don’t know what’s right here, and to admit that we have arguments on both sides and possibly moral differences. It’s fair to just say, “this is my responsibility, I’m not going to quibble over it anymore.” I respect that, and we all ought to respect that.
Well, Chula’s post is only 18 words long, so the judgment she’s making must be in there somewhere, yet I fail to see it. I certainly fail to see how these 18 words make Chula a “cowardly ass” and it’s certainly not as nasty as saying she would “be spitting on servicemen returning from Vietnam and bragging about it the next day” as the OP states.
Oh, and this part was especially lovely: “I sincerely hope that at some point, hopefully in the not to distant future, you . . . find yourself in an area of the world where you are imprisioned and tortured for the “crime” of being who you are.”
18 words merit all this venom?
And mhendo,
all I can infer is that she has a preference for additional debate. There are those who will say that all killing is wrong, yet there is a much greater number of those who are opposed at this time.
Why isn’t that considered the middle ground?
Hey, i’ve got no argument with that. My observation regarding the general issue of pacifism was just that - an observation. I really don’t know if chula intended to take that position or not. I was just thinking out loud that a moral opposition to killing might be the impetus behind her post.
I love the selective reading by people. Dare to suggest that their happy little policy of appeasement is wong, and suddenly I’m advocating “supression of dissent” or some such garbage. From the OP:
In reply, we get the following (inaccurate) statements:
No, genius, it’s not. The exact quote is : “Too bad you’re not tired of that ( fighting with weapons that harm people )” Not my interpetation, the words used by chula.
GIGOBuster chimes up:
So, even though I don’t say that dissent should be silenced, that’s the point you want to make and thus you plan to ignore the facts. Good plan. :rolleyes:
Zoe then pipes up with the most ridiculous statement in the entire thread:
Why don’t you reread the OP, particularly the part I quoted earlier in this post. Speaking out against the war is not the problem. ( Oh, but then what’s the point? Guess what? YOU DON’T HAVE ONE ). Speaking out against the people risking their lives to protect your right to protest is. You would have to try very hard to bring yourself up to the intelectual standards of toast.
But those aren’t chula’s words. Chula never said " that ( fighting with weapons that harm people )," she said “latter.” What you’ve written up there is merely your interpretation of her words. Whether that interpretation is right or wrong, you must admit it is still an interpretation.
Another interpretation could be that Chula believes conflicts can be resolved peacefully if we have the right negotiators.
Another interpretation could be that Chula believes Airman Doors is a warmongering baby killer and gets off on violence.
Words are what we make of them. Unfortunately, words are all we have on this messageboard.
I find it confusing that you would bring up point C in your OP, showing that Airman Doors himself believes there to be a wide variety of opinions available on the subject, and then you take a statement that could have a multitude of meanings, pigeonhole it into one, and condemn it.
Even if it’s the worst interpretation that could be made, it still has the right to be said. Yes, Airman Doors will be fighting for all our freedom, but no one has freedom unless allowed to actually be free. Yes, this even includes the freedom to disagree with what produced that freedom.
There is no other statement that could be “latter” except “harmful fighting with weapons”. I will admit that I did assume that the harm was going to be done to people and not that she’s upset about the potential harm to the Iraqi desert or some such, but that’s the only assumption I made.
I interpret this remark, in the thread that it appeared in, as a jab at A. Doors, accusing him of preferring to fight with harmful weapons rather than less harmful words. I can’t interpret her comment any other way than accusing him of wanting to harm others. In his OP, he clearly states that he believes that war is the only option. That, though he would prefer it, he believes a peaceful solution is not possible. That he is obligated to go to war, whether he wants to or no, and the name-calling and ugly accusations that the debate over the war has turned into is causing him unnecessary pain.
chula absolutely has the right to state her opinions, as do the rest of us. She does not, however, have the right to be free from reproach for how she states them, and I won’t let her hide behind making ambiguous remarks that read like malicious digs but could be interpreted another way by someone who is determined to excuse her. That is a tired old manipulative technique. chula’s remark in that thread was a nasty jab, ugly and uncalled for. Her remark was cowardly, in that she doesn’t come right out and say what she means. Her remark was heartless, in that she responded to A. Doors’s heartfelt expression of sadness over the impending situation and the futility of arguing rather than debating, and the personal pain he feels at being drawn into it, with a personal attack. If she wants to pretend that such nastiness is not harmful, shame on her.
I’ve read your other posts, chula, and I don’t feel that your contribution in the above thread is generally indicative of your character. I would like to think better of you than I do right now. I would invite you to explain how it is anything other than a personal attack, and, if it wasn’t, apologize to A. Doors for not expressing yourself better. Can you?
I’m sorry, Weirddave, I didn’t make myself sufficiently clear. The quote of yours I pulled accused people of selective reading, yet blithely characterised anyone who dared disagree with you as having a “happy little policy of appeasement”. This is a shamelessly hypocritical statement; so foolish as to suggest that its author is - at least for the moment - not worth reading. If I am ignorant, persuade me. Or at least attempt to.
Maybe better that create them? Libertarian tried to support it but his link goes to a Forest Gump MIDI playing site with the exact wording of the urban rumor found before. I still go for the findings of the Vietnam vet that investigated the subject.
No middle ground? I think Saddam is toast; inspections with more interaction with US intelligence will track and control more WMD: that means fewer soldiers lives lost. And there are other plans that can happen because of the current show of force. And I also trust that Saddam will screw up and we will go take care of him with world opinion in our favor, the big problem now is finding a leader that doesn’t screw alliances on the way to that.
I personally am tired of seeing people being acused of trying to stifle debate every time they write something supporting the war. How exactly does that stifle debate? Does stifling debate mean posting something that disagrees with you?
Having read the entire original thread and this thread, I do not see how “too bad you’re not tired of the latter” can be interpreted as anything other than a direct criticism of Airman Doors.
And when a discussion/debate/argument about the war turns into an ad hominem attack, that’s when I think it steps out of line.
Interesting that we’re proving exactly what Airman Doors lamented in his thread reguarding polarization and a lck of middle ground. I meant, of course, that refusal to read a post when it dosen’t agree with your world view ( by anyone ) would be revealing ignorance.
FWIW, I’m a servicemember and I wasn’t too bothered by chula’s post. I’m surprised to see a Pit thread about it, although I am glad to see the support. Unfortunately, I think all it’s serving to do is spread the ill will around. There’s going to be more posts like hers in the near future. Are we going to Pit each one?
Having said all that, I’m inclined to agree with tmwster’s post.
Your response just confirms what I suspected of you. Your behavior is classic “sniper” technique. A sniper takes verbal potshots at her victim under cover of innuendo or non-playful joking, then, when called on the carpet for them, responds with, “Who me? I didn’t say that, why are you upset? I’m so misunderstood!” complete with tinfoil halo. Another version of this is, “Oh, I was just joking, don’t take it so personally. Geez, you are so sensitive!”
Stop insulting our intelligence with your manipulative games, chula. If all you meant is that you wished he agreed with your point of view, then why are you implying that he wishes to harm others? If you want to take verbal potshots at others for not agreeing with your views, then acknowledge what you are doing and take responsibility for it.
I still think an apology to Airman Doors is in order.