[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
There is nothing that I don’t think Bush and friends would do. They are limited in what they can do, but they have no morality, no honor, no ethics of any kind.
[/QUOTE]
I understand that it’s difficult to see thought your unbridled, and complete and total hate, but statements like this detract from any salient point that might actually fight it’s way through. Making a positive point every ten years or so wouldn’t hurt either.
[QUOTE=spifflog]
I understand that it’s difficult to see thought your unbridled, and complete and total hate, but statements like this detract from any salient point that might actually fight it’s way through.
[/quote]
And do you have any evidence to show me wrong ? Any sign of any form of scruples from these people ? Or is this another version of American Exceptionalism; do you think that he can’t be that bad because he’s the American President ?
[QUOTE=spifflog]
Making a positive point every ten years or so wouldn’t hurt either.
[/QUOTE]
There’s nothing positive about Iraq or Bush.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And do you have any evidence to show me wrong ? Any sign of any form of scruples from these people ? Or is this another version of American Exceptionalism; do you think that he can’t be that bad because he’s the American President ?
[/QUOTE]
He has, despite the protests of his party, continued to have a soft stance on illegal immigration.
But of course, I’m sure you’ll come up with some evil reasoning behind that.
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
Gee, ya think? Isn’t that the point?
[/QUOTE]
That the threats are hollow and meaning less (and probably not genuine), and that they are politically motivated in order to attempt to splash yet more mud on Bush et al? Certainly. Glad you have a grasp on things, and have kindly restated my earlier statement of the obvious. 
-XT
[QUOTE=Tristan]
He has, despite the protests of his party, continued to have a soft stance on illegal immigration.
But of course, I’m sure you’ll come up with some evil reasoning behind that.
[/QUOTE]
Cheap labor for his business buddies, obviously.
Of course it’s political. When Bush says he wants to bring democracy to Iraq, he was making a political statement. When Reagan challenged Communism, he was making a political statement. When Johnson declared war on poverty, he was making a political statement. When Lincoln emancipated the slaves, he was making a political statement. And if any generals resign because of their opposition to a war, they’ll be making a political statement. You can’t discuss a political idea without making a political statement.
As for how meaningful this statement is, I’ll point out that it’s already been made. Regardless of what happens in Iran, the White House is not going to forget what was said. These officers have already effectively ended their careers by merely threatening to resign. So I hardly think it’s a hollow or meaningless gesture.
As for “splashing mud” these officers work in the Pentagon, not the DNC - it’s hardly a bastion of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. These officers could have just stayed silent and avoided being involved in this situation. They’ve gained nothing and given up a lot by stepping forward.
At some point, Bush’s stoutest supporters have to take a step back and consider the possibility that the reason so many people are saying he’s wrong is because he actually is wrong.
So, what I’m catching here is that our soldiers both are and should be unthinking automatons?
-Joe
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
So, what I’m catching here is that our soldiers both are and should be unthinking automatons?
[/QUOTE]
If you are ‘catching’ this from what I’ve written then you are obviously misunderhearing what I’m saying. If you are getting that from someone else…well, they are wrong if thats what they are saying.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Of course it’s political. When Bush says he wants to bring democracy to Iraq, he was making a political statement. When Reagan challenged Communism, he was making a political statement. When Johnson declared war on poverty, he was making a political statement. When Lincoln emancipated the slaves, he was making a political statement. And if any generals resign because of their opposition to a war, they’ll be making a political statement. You can’t discuss a political idea without making a political statement.
[/QUOTE]
Yes…I know.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
As for how meaningful this statement is, I’ll point out that it’s already been made.
[/QUOTE]
lol…certainly my friend. Let me exaggerate a bit to make the point I was trying (unsucessfully) to make:
Lets say that I make the statement that, if flying pink unicorns decide to suddenly drop their invisibility gig I will agree to become a card carrying communist and take to the streets to further the cause of the people. Lets say I’m Ronald Reagan and I make a statement to this effect to the press. How meaningful is my statement?
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
As for “splashing mud” these officers work in the Pentagon, not the DNC - it’s hardly a bastion of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. These officers could have just stayed silent and avoided being involved in this situation. They’ve gained nothing and given up a lot by stepping forward.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not making any statements its a vast left wing conspiracy…YOU said that, not me. Having said that, if you don’t think that this statement is politically motivated by officers who either feel sympathy with the Dems or have a grudge against the current administration (or maybe a bit of both), then you are a trusting soul. To take it a bit further, I wouldn’t be surprised if these officers (ed. didn’t) independently came up with this stance all on their lonesome…just coincidentally at the exact same time.
As for what they’ve gained, I’m sorry…but I disagree they have gained nothing. They have gained, at a minimum, publication of their views in a public medium. I’m sure if you put your mind to it, you could come up with some other things they may have gained from this stance. If you can’t, leave it at that…that isn’t exactly ‘nothing’.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
At some point, Bush’s stoutest supporters have to take a step back and consider the possibility that the reason so many people are saying he’s wrong is because he actually is wrong.
[/QUOTE]
And at some point Bush’ stoutest detractors need to realize he isn’t ALWAYS wrong…and a knee jerk reaction that anything he does is automatically wrong (much as I sympathize with this stance myself mind you ) is equally wrong. I’m unconvinced that Bush’s actions wrt Iran are automatically wrong…as I remain unconvinced that a (limited) military option is automatically wrong. In addition, Bush hasn’t, as yet, actually TAKEN any military action in Iran…so this is a bit presumptuous. In fact, afaik, we don’t currently have any active plans moving forward TOO attack Iran…and I think its highly doubtful we will in fact do that. From where I’m sitting this seems like the same kind of chicken little stuff we heard when Bush was first elected wrt abortion…and that we heard about the draft coming soon (curiously right at election time ), or that Bush et al was going to set aside those same elections and declare himself god and king…or something. Before you give me myriad examples from the Republican side, I will happily concede they do stupid shit like this all the time too…arguably even MORE than the left wing loonies.
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
If you are ‘catching’ this from what I’ve written then you are obviously misunderhearing what I’m saying. If you are getting that from someone else…well, they are wrong if thats what they are saying.
[/QUOTE]
Seems to me that you’re saying that soldiers should follow orders without question.
If that is not what you are saying, please be more clear.
-Joe
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Seems to me that you’re saying that soldiers should follow orders without question.
[/QUOTE]
Intersting.
[QUOTE=XT]
Now…if GW and his merry men attempt to use unlawful policies, or issue orders that are unlawful THEN I EXPECT the military to go tell them to pound sand…or to paraphrase a book I just read ‘if someone orders you to point your guns at someone illegally, then point your guns at those who gave such orders’.
[/QUOTE]
How do you interperet this as meaning soldiers should follow orders without question? Is it unclear? It SEEMS clear to me…
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
If that is not what you are saying, please be more clear.
[/QUOTE]
Well…assuming the above is unclear, I will attempt to see if I can clear it up a bit. Soldiers (and military officers) are expected, in a democracy at least, to follow the legal orders give to them by the lawful CIVILIAN authority. Thats pretty clear…and frankly we want it that way. The alternative is a pretty slippery slope that do have serious doubts many of you really want to go down…even in your effort to twart all things Bush.
That doesn’t mean, nor do we expect our military to follow UNLAWFUL orders blindly…or follow them at all. For one thing, if they do follow unlawful orders and the situation goes tits up, they will be held accountable, orders or no orders. We absolutely require the military to follow the lawful orders of our government however…otherwise we don’t have a useful military and we are in deep shit. When one is in the military, one quickly realizes something profound…when one is in the military one is not in a democracy anymore.
This particular situation we are debating isn’t exactly on par with refusal to follow lawfully given orders…sort of. Its a fine line IMHO…and one open more to the high mucky mucks than to the average spear carrier in the field. I certainly was never given the chance to disobey lawful orders and simply resign (its to laugh). Granted, if someone in the military (read an officer type) doesn’t agree with the lawful orders given to them (especially if they are a high ranking officer with political pull…as opposed to say Private Shmucky in a combat zone), they can resign their commissions under protest. If these yahoo’s want to pre-emptively come forth to state they will resign their commissions (in theory…I’ll believe it when I see it) before they are even GIVEN those orders…well. :rolleyes: YMMV of course.
Clear?
-XT
No, XT, I’m afraid you’re not being very clear. I, at least, am unsure what exactly it is you’re saying.
Are you implying that no generals have actually said they would resign and this is just a rumor? Or do you think some generals may have said this but don’t actually mean it? Or do you think they said it, but their actual motive is self-interest or advancing an anti-Bush agenda? Or are you saying the possibility of America going to war against Iran is so unlikely that no rational person would bother making plans about the possibility?