Support Our Troops!

[clairobscur]

@Airman Doors

In that case, due to the laws of virtually every country in the world, you would would be charged with treason, convicted, and at the minimum imprisoned.

But treason still can be the moral thing to do.

You seem to be a moral relativist. That’s fine. But if the choice comes down to rooting for my countrymen or yelling “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, VietCong are gonna win”, or worse, pulling a Jane Fonda, my countrymen are going to win out. Every time. You’re obviously different in that regard.

I probably have a tendancy towards moral relativism, but I don’t think it’s related to my stance here, at the contrary. Moral relativism implies that there are no absolute moral values. Here, we’re not discussing whether there are absolute moral values, but about which moral values should prevail (put in a caricatural way : patriotism/national solidarity on one hand and justice on the other hand. And I happen to rank patriotism very low in my moral scale)
Actually, I’m not convinced that you wouldn’t envision treason under some particular circumstances, either, for instance. The disagreement is over whether or not support is due to troops in essentially all circumstances in a democratic country. I don’t think so, as I made clear.

To take a tame example that people mentionned, I wouldn’t send a postcard to a random soldier fighting in a war I oppose to on moral grounds. And I wouldn’t congratulate him, either. And to be honest, a french soldier unknown to me being killed isn’t any different for me than an american or Iraki soldier facing the same fate. Not merely from an intellectual point of view. I actually feel that way. And I definitely believe that depending on circumstances, the correct thing to do can range from not supporting troops all the way to treason.

I’ve no moral issue with treason per se. Only the motives of the traitor (say money or idealism) and whether or not the side he’s betraying is the “good” side (according to me) would allow me to decide if this action should be despised or lauded. And actually most people would think along the same line, since many “traitors” in history have been later considered as heroes, and they wouldn’t argue about these ones.

But however, it seems also that many people have a too strong tendancy for my taste to assume that “their” side is and will be in the future the “good” side. This tendancy disturbs me a lot, and honestly I find it dangerous. And nor the french, nor the american historical record give me any confidence that a conflict or military operation one of these countries would engage in is necessarily likely to be just. I could add also that besides the cause, the way the operations are conducted is of a major importance, and the current events in Irak are a shining example of this. And I’ve not much confidence in our governments always doing things the right way, either. And apparently (still refering to Irak) rightly so (not that I’m surprised by what happened. There were ample warnings it was likely to happen).

[clairobscur]

@iamme99

. Choosing a 3rd party candidate, writing in a candidate or not voting all have the same effect - nothing will change, because they aren’t going to get elected.

.

I disagree with that. Because if enough people vote for a third party, it could appear as a viable alternative for future elections and ultimately become a full-fledged third party. If one disagree with both current parties, voting for one of them is just agreeing not to have anything changing ever. Were I an american liberal, I wouldn’t complain about people who voted for Nader, for instance, even though it might have resulted in Gore not being elected. Here, I’m one of the people who cast a vote in favor of a minor party during the last presidential elections, which resulted in the left candidate that I liked vastly more than Chirac being eliminated. I do not regret my vote for an instant. Because I was unhappy with the policies of the main left party, and it was the only way to make things change, since it sent two messages :
1)As I wrote above, augmenting the support for a minor party I favor gives it more credibility, and could result in it becoming a viable alternative eventually (and it definitely gained influence during the recent years)

2)It sends to the major left party the message : I’m unhappy with you, and you’d better change your stance if you want me to ever vote for you.

[komrade]

@devilsknew

Since the start of Gulf II, the Ultra-Nationalist, politically correct, rallying cry of “Support Our Troops!” has permeated the American mindset. It seems like one can disagree with the war, but God help you if you don’t support the troops. This seems like obfuscation through propaganda to me. How can one support the sword if you believe the blow is unjust and immoral?
In light of recent atrocities, is it time to rethink the blind support of our troops?

support our troops, help them to desert

because we refuse to learn the lessons of blind support of politicians we let the soldiers pay the price

[iamme99]

@clairobscur

I disagree with that. Because if enough people vote for a third party, it could appear as a viable alternative for future elections and ultimately become a full-fledged third party. If one disagree with both current parties, voting for one of them is just agreeing not to have anything changing ever. Were I an american liberal, I wouldn’t complain about people who voted for Nader, for instance, even though it might have resulted in Gore not being elected. Here, I’m one of the people who cast a vote in favor of a minor party during the last presidential elections, which resulted in the left candidate that I liked vastly more than Chirac being eliminated. I do not regret my vote for an instant. Because I was unhappy with the policies of the main left party, and it was the only way to make things change, since it sent two messages :

1)As I wrote above, augmenting the support for a minor party I favor gives it more credibility, and could result in it becoming a viable alternative eventually (and it definitely gained influence during the recent years)

2)It sends to the major left party the message : I’m unhappy with you, and you’d better change your stance if you want me to ever vote for you.

As I said - foolishly idealistic. Did you REALLY read what I wrote before posting? You know, the part about 3rd party candidates success rate and influence on the world?

Your #1 isn’t going to happen, no matter how much you want to believe it and for #2, as I said previously, the major parties don’t really care if you vote for them or not. Enough major party loyalists will always vote for their candidates to ensure that the current two party system continues to get them elected.

[annaplurabelle]

@iamme99

As I said - foolishly idealistic. Did you REALLY read what I wrote before posting? You know, the part about 3rd party candidates success rate and influence on the world?

To be fair, clairobscur is in France. The US is not “the world”. Third parties do have more influence in other countries…

Anyway, thanks for the response re third party candidates. You forgot Anderson though (I forgot about Paulson) I wonder if any Perot voters have regrets (I know plenty of Nader voters who do).

Interesting idea that pols don’t care how many votes they get as long as they win. Does anyone disagree with that?

Also, you previously said:

When you choose not to vote, you are giving other people the power to make decisions that affect you. Not voting is not going to change our system of government. That goal can only be achieved by VOTING!

So how does voting “change our system of govt”, if the only viable choices are the status quo?

clairobscur: Just curious, but if you were an American liberal voting this year, would you still vote for Nader?

[clairobscur]

@iamme99

As I said - foolishly idealistic. Did you REALLY read what I wrote before posting? You know, the part about 3rd party candidates success rate and influence on the world?

Your #1 isn’t going to happen, no matter how much you want to believe it and for .

And why so, apart from the fact that many people try to deter others from voting for a third candidate?
You’re right. Nothing can change. Nothing ever change (especially when people not only don’t try to make things change but also try to deter others from doing so).

[clairobscur]

@annaplurabelle

clairobscur: Just curious, but if you were an American liberal voting this year, would you still vote for Nader?

Ok…You tricked me. Assuming that I suddenly become an american citizen tomorrow, I would vote for Kerry. The stakes would be really too high this time, and I’m not only refering to foreign affair issues. Not that, from what I read, I find Kerry extremely convincing, but Bush is such a dangerous bozo that I would think it’s a major duty to oust him. Even discounting great political issues I couldn’t agree with (say concerning social issues), he’s in my opinion a failure at all levels. Ideology , foreign affairs, civil liberties, economy, you name it…I wouldn’t know if he’s an idiot or not, if he’s a self-brainwashed ideologue (though actually, even his ideology doesn’t make sense to me), if he actually runs his country or let other people doing so (the fact that I wonder about this is telling), but in any case, I hold his administration as plain dangerous, including for the american society itself.
So…OK, on this occasion, I would vote for the democrat candidate. But I think it’s a rare situation. I wouldn’t have much issue with voting for a third party in 2000, for instance, or to cast a write-in vote. Amongst the politicians I’m somehow familiar with, the ones I would so much want to oust that I could vote for a challenger I don’t really like , if I were a citizen of their countries, are Bush, the Italian Berlusconi (who is totally corrupt to boost), possibly Putin depending on who the challenger is and the Indian BJP, which, to my greatest pleasure, lost the last elections.
So, it doesn’t change my stance that voting for a third party shouldn’t be discouraged, even though there might be some exceptions. But I admit you got me on this one.

[Dog80]

@xtisme

Your ‘complicity’ is implied Devil. You are a citizen of this nation. Did you actually read what I wrote before? The Government of the US is BY the People (thats you and me) and FOR the People (thats you and me again). Get it? You are a citizen, the government REPRESENTS you, and me and everyone else who is a citizen. When it takes actions (in our names), we are responsible for those actions. Whether you agree or disagree is irelevant to your responsibility. Unless you want to repudiate your citizenship and go to another nation, in a democracy the citizens are responsible for the actions of THEIR Government. And it IS your government, just like its mine. I don’t happen to like the government that is currently in power, but its still my government, just like its yours. If its not, why have a nation, and what is the meaning of democracy??

Wouldn’t that justify suicide bombings against civilians? According to you, civilians are responsible too, so its fair game.

[clairobscur]

@Dog80

Wouldn’t that justify suicide bombings against civilians? According to you, civilians are responsible too, so its fair game.

He would first have to define what kind of responsability he’s speaking about. I already asked this, but got no answer. And it seems to me we can’t argue further about this without some basic definition of what we’re discussing.

[XT]

@Dog80

Wouldn’t that justify suicide bombings against civilians? According to you, civilians are responsible too, so its fair game.

This is actually a more difficult question to answer than it would appear on first reading. To my mind, nothing ‘justifies’ suicide bombings against civilians…they are never fair game. And of course, this assumes the terrorists targetting civilians in a democracy know (or care) that the the authority and power of the government derives from the people…something I find highly unlikely. They are attacking civilians because its easier and makes a bigger statement than attacking the more difficult military targets, and to cause terror in a population, not because they think they are getting back at who is responsible.

However, the core of the question, I conceed that if you were of a sick mindset but still intellegent and well read enough to understand the mechanics of a democracy (something it appears to me to be unlikely, as from this thread its obvious that even folks who LIVE in a democracy don’t understand), then I conceed you could see it that way. You still wouldn’t be ‘justified’ however, as the ‘legitimate’ targets are the instruments imbued with power by the people, i.e. the government and the military.

Is your point that, as responsible citizens in a democracy, we the people should be at risk because the power and ultimately the direction of our government stems from us? Well, we ARE at risk of course…witness what happened on 9/11. Now, I seriously doubt that Bin Laden and his merry men attacked civilian targets in the US because they realized that power of the government derives from the citizens, or that the citizens are ultimately responsible for the decisions and actions of our government. It was just an easier target for them, and it had a bigger impact than blowing up a US warship or attacking another foriegn embasy in some other obscure African country…plus its their M.O. for years. Notice they ALSO attack civilian targets in nations that aren’t democracies, who’s citizens aren’t fully empowered (to say the least) and so aren’t really responsible?

@clairobscur

He would first have to define what kind of responsability he’s speaking about. I already asked this, but got no answer. And it seems to me we can’t argue further about this without some basic definition of what we’re discussing.

If you asked me any such thing I must have missed it. If I have time later to slog back through the whole thread, and if the question is something I haven’t already answered in about 10 different ways in this thread, I’ll try and address it.

-XT

[MLS]

@Airman Doors

Well said, Jman.

Rather than re-quote Jman’s excellent post, I’ll just second Airman Doors’ opinion. To both of you: Thank you heartily.

[annaplurabelle]

@xtisme

And of course, this assumes the terrorists targetting civilians in a democracy know (or care) that the the authority and power of the government derives from the people…something I find highly unlikely…

However, the core of the question, I conceed that if you were of a sick mindset but still intellegent and well read enough to understand the mechanics of a democracy (something it appears to me to be unlikely, as from this thread its obvious that even folks who LIVE in a democracy don’t understand), then I conceed you could see it that way…

You’ve said this before, and there is absolutely no basis for it. It would be easier to argue that George Bush is an idiot (an argument you’ve continually disparaged here with the ubiquitous roll-eye).

ObL is unquestionably intelligent and well read. He has a degree in management and economics from one of the finest universities in the ME. Known to have computer and technical skills, and by all accounts a shrewd businessman. His right-hand man, al-Zawahiri, studied medicine, and gave up a promising career as a pediatrician to become a freedom fighter/terrorist. He refused political asylum in Europe to go to Afghanistan.

They both come from affluent and priviledged families, are highly educated and relatively Westernised. They are not the simple ignorant and impoverished “freedom haters” western propaganda tries to pass off to their own “ignorant” masses. Get your facts straight.

clairobscur: I wasn’t trying to “trick” you. I agree with most of your points so far, and I understand the dilemma involved. I think it just points out the futility of the slogan preachers telling people “if you want change - vote”. iamme99 hasn’t answered that one yet; maybe he’ll be along later…

[XT]

@annaplurabelle

You’ve said this before, and there is absolutely no basis for it. It would be easier to argue that George Bush is an idiot (an argument you’ve continually disparaged here with the ubiquitous roll-eye).

I don’t suppose you could give me a hint as to what the hell you are talking about here, could you? I’ve said WHAT before? That a lot of people in this thread don’t seem to understand what citizenship is about? I think thats pretty obvious, at least from my perspective. That terrorist wouldn’t understand this concept? Well, I’m sure SOME of them do, but I doubt many of them do, especially in light of the fact that it seems a lot of US CITIZENS don’t have a clue…its too radically different than the environment they were brought up in. Something else I said before? I’m trying to relate this paragraph to what you quoted from me and drawing a blank. Whats GW being an idiot or not being an idiot have to do with anything?

@annaplurabelle

ObL is unquestionably intelligent and well read. He has a degree in management and economics from one of the finest universities in the ME. Known to have computer and technical skills, and by all accounts a shrewd businessman. His right-hand man, al-Zawahiri, studied medicine, and gave up a promising career as a pediatrician to become a freedom fighter/terrorist. He refused political asylum in Europe to go to Afghanistan.

Sure he is…never said he wasn’t educated. I know a hell of a lot about ole ObL. Whats that got to do with anything? You think because someone is educated that means they understand a culture or political system that is radically different than the one they were brought up in? Oh, I’m sure on the surface he understands (perhaps), and hell, maybe he knows more about it than the average US citizen, I just have seen no indication of it. For one thing, I think he badly miscalculated the US’s response initially both from a resolve standpoint and from a military response standpoint.

I seriously doubt he thought his actions would trigger the destruction of Afghanistan the way it did. I’m pretty convinced from things I’ve read that he WANTED the US to attack Afghanistan, but that he felt our attack would be weak (certainly weaker than the Soviets who he felt were stronger because they were more brutal) and we would lose resolve and be humiliated much like the Russians were. It kind of shows a lack of understanding about the US mentality…when we get kicked in the nuts we can show a hell of a lot of anger and resolve. When we back into a war (like vietnam or Iraq) we become less resolute and more self critical.

No idea btw if I’m addressing your points because frankly I’m not getting them. Either I’m more tired than I thought or they simply make no sense.

@annaplurabelle

They both come from affluent and priviledged families, are highly educated and relatively Westernised. They are not the simple ignorant and impoverished “freedom haters” western propaganda tries to pass off to their own “ignorant” masses. Get your facts straight.

What ‘facts’ are you babbling about? I never said anything about ‘hating freedom’ or any such tripe. Where are you getting this strawman from (I’m guessing a nether orifice, but please do tell)?? Who said that some of the terrorists, including ObL weren’t educated, or that they were all ‘ignorant’?? You seem to be attributing a lot to me I never said here.

You also seem to be under the delusion that because someone is educated they automatically understand everything. Are you educated? Could you explain to me the subtle nuances of Parlimentary Democracy in Great Britian? Compare and contrast it to the India system, or perhaps the government in France? Do you understand the various political twists and turns in Japanese politics, and realize the mood of the general population on various key issues? How about in Russia? Germany? Do you know the tribal alliances and wars in the Sudan? Yet you are educated (I assume), and its a ‘western education’ to boot.

Why do you suppose that because ObL is educated, even educated in a top notch ‘western’ school, he would understand everything about being a US citizen and about our government? Kind of arrogant and stupid of you, don’t you think? Why SHOULD he after all, when its not part of his culture, his belief system, or his political inclination? Hell, the Russians (when the were the Soviets) used to go nuts trying to figure us out, and some of them WERE ex-pat US citizens. And they certainly weren’t ignorant nor stupid.

In future, try reading what I say, instead of what you THINK I’m saying, or what you WISH I was saying. If you have a problem with what I am actually saying, by all means bring it up…but don’t try and put words in my mouth or strawman positions for me to fit into just because thats YOUR idea of my philosophy.

-XT

[XT]

BTW, just to clarify as I know someone will call me on it, when I say "For one thing, I think he badly miscalculated the US’s response initially both from a resolve standpoint and from a military response standpoint. " the implication is that ObL is completely in charge of AQ and making all the decisions. I’m aware that this isn’t the case, as well as the fact that AQ isn’t some monolithic terrorist organization, but more like an alliance of terrorist organization, or even a clearing house for terrorist groups loosely aligned. However, for the purpose of this discussion I was just using him as a focal point, as I’m sure he was pretty instrumental in the decision process to do 9/11, as well as other strategic planning for AQ.

-XT

[iamme99]

Is this the question you wanted me to address?

@annaplurabelle

Interesting idea that pols don’t care how many votes they get as long as they win. Does anyone disagree with that?

Also, you previously said:

@iamme99

When you choose not to vote, you are giving other people the power to make decisions that affect you. Not voting is not going to change our system of government. That goal can only be achieved by VOTING!

So how does voting “change our system of govt”, if the only viable choices are the status quo?

It gets changed from the inside by the existing players, over time. If you want faster or more radical changes, then you are going to first have to change how our voting system works. But since few to no one on the inside will back you on what would be such a large change, you’re only recourse is revolution, taking control and instituting the new system. To repeat, you can vote for 3rd party candidates but none have succeeded at anything in recent times except acting as spoilers. Now if that’s your goal, that’s one thing. But if you actually believe that anything is going to change through a 3rd party vote, then you are choosing to ignore history.

[annaplurabelle]

@xtisme

I don’t suppose you could give me a hint as to what the hell you are talking about here, could you?

I guess the snipped quotes from you and my topic focused reply wasn’t enough. Sorry if I overestimated your intelligence.

@xtisme

That terrorist wouldn’t understand this concept?

Bingo!

Funny how you seemed to “guess” right, since it was also the focus of your reply (intermingled with personal insults - classy of you, btw).

@xtisme

Sure he is…never said he wasn’t educated.

Again, what you said (I’ll bold this time):

@xtisme

And of course, this assumes the terrorists targetting civilians in a democracy know (or care) that the the authority and power of the government derives from the people…something I find highly unlikely…

However, the core of the question, I conceed that if you were of a sick mindset but still intellegent and well read enough to understand the mechanics of a democracy (something it appears to me to be unlikely, as from this thread its obvious that even folks who LIVE in a democracy don’t understand), then I conceed you could see it that way…

Did I assume too much from that? Did I just “wish” you said it?

@xtisme

I know a hell of a lot about ole ObL. Whats that got to do with anything? You think because someone is educated that means they understand a culture or political system that is radically different than the one they were brought up in? Oh, I’m sure on the surface he understands (perhaps), and hell, maybe he knows more about it than the average US citizen, I just have seen no indication of it.

Try this, from transcripts of ObL tapes (I’ll bold again, to help you out):

“A man is considered a fighter whether he carries a gun or pays taxes to help kill us. So when they say bin Laden kills civilians, who are they killing in Palestine? Children. Our aim is that every American man is an enemy whether he kills us or pays taxes to kill us. The U.S. has a double standard…75 percent of the American people support Clinton hitting Saddam Hussein. It is a nation where the president’s rating goes up when he kills civilians.”

I’d say he’s got a clue that “power derives from the people in a democracy”. Ya think?

@xtisme

Are you educated? Could you explain to me the subtle nuances of Parlimentary Democracy in Great Britian?

You weren’t referring to “subtle nuances”. That “power derives from the people in democracy” is hardly a subtle nuance. So much for this strawman and your strawmen that follow (plus all those oh-so-convincing personal remarks - what, did you exceed your roll-eye quota for this week?)…

[annaplurabelle]

@iamme99

It gets changed from the inside by the existing players, over time. If you want faster or more radical changes, then you are going to first have to change how our voting system works. But since few to no one on the inside will back you on what would be such a large change, you’re only recourse is revolution, taking control and instituting the new system. To repeat, you can vote for 3rd party candidates but none have succeeded at anything in recent times except acting as spoilers. Now if that’s your goal, that’s one thing. But if you actually believe that anything is going to change through a 3rd party vote, then you are choosing to ignore history.

I wasn’t arguing the viability of 3rd party voting in effecting change. I was just asking you to clarify what you meant by:

“Not voting is not going to change our system of government. That goal can only be achieved by VOTING!”.

Thanks for the clarification. Can’t say I disagree.

But now it comes back to responsibility. It seems that voting can only lead to slow and limited changes, if any. Assuming that you don’t want to go for the “revolution” option, your actual power is fairly limited. So shouldn’t your responsibility be equally limited?

Frankly, I just think the timing of this debate is bad for those preaching responsibility. Considering that the current administration consistently refuses to take any responsibility for its actions (and the repercussions), it’s kind of rich to be trying to lay the rap on “the people”. Can any of you make a case based on “informed consent”? When’s the last time we had that option?

[XT]

Well, seems the thread is winding down, so I’ll try and keep the vitrol to a minimum. I’ve been in a bit of a mood lately…got to break out of it sometime.

@annaplurabelle

I guess the snipped quotes from you and my topic focused reply wasn’t enough. Sorry if I overestimated your intelligence.

I think you overestimated your ability to write a clear post. I had no idea what you were getting at in your first paragraph. If that makes me stupid in your eyes, so be it. I’ll try and struggle on somehow.

@annaplurabelle

Funny how you seemed to “guess” right, since it was also the focus of your reply (intermingled with personal insults - classy of you, btw).

No ‘guessing’ involved, as your subsequent paragraphs banged on about this quite clearly. The question I had was how your first paragraph related to my quotes and all of it tied in to Bush being stupid. Hey, if it made sense to you, I suppose its all good.

@annaplurabelle

Did I assume too much from that? Did I just “wish” you said it?

Well, I don’t know if you wished I had or not, but you’ve certainly not shown that I DID say anything like ‘they hate us for our freedom’, or that they were stupid ignorant so and so’s, or any other such dippy shit.

You are reading FAR too much into what I wrote and slanting it towards your conception of what I meant. Lets look at what I wrote again and see if we can clarify for you:

@annaplurabelle

know (or care) that the the authority and power of the government derives from the people…something I find highly unlikely…

but still intellegent and well read enough to understand the mechanics of a democracy (something it appears to me to be unlikely

Terrorists have their own agendas. They generally DON’T know OR care where the power derives from in a nation…they are simply about causing terror. They come from another environment, totally different than ours. Hell, even folks from Europe, who ARE in a democracy still don’t really understand how the US works (and vice versa of cours). Again, I’m sure on an intellectual basis some of the terrorists (maybe even ObL) ‘understands’ the US…but its only a surface understanding. But they simply don’t need to deeply understand how the US operates to know that if they fly a plane into a building full of civilians, its going to cause terror in a population.

@annaplurabelle

I’d say he’s got a clue that “power derives from the people in a democracy”. Ya think?

Well, since you ask so nicely, no…I dont think so.

"A man is considered a fighter whether he carries a gun or pays taxes to help kill us.

Our aim is that every American man is an enemy whether he kills us or pays taxes to kill us.

He’s talking about TAXES, annaplurabelle, which you are equating to power. And ya, I think he’s got a clue that people pay taxes…VERY insightful of him. Brilliant. Certainly shows a deep understanding of democracy and how power derives from the people…they pay taxes.

Maybe YOU don’t understand either…wouldn’t surprise me. He is saying that the US citizens pay their taxes, and those taxes go to killing muslims, so therefore they are legitimate targets in his eyes. He equates the American people with sheep paying the bills for an imperalist war machine, not of empowered citizens involved in the decision process. And frankly he doesnt’ HAVE to understand, as it really makes no difference in the end…if one is going to resort to terror tactics, one is going to target civilians, and anything else is simply rationalization. I’m surprised he even bothers to rationalize it.

It is a nation where the president’s rating goes up when he kills civilians.

You REALLY think this shows a deep understanding of the US people? If so I can only shake my head.

-XT

[annaplurabelle]

@xtisme

Well, seems the thread is winding down, so I’ll try and keep the vitrol to a minimum. I’ve been in a bit of a mood lately…got to break out of it sometime.

Your bad “mood” isn’t my/our problem, and doesn’t take the place of an apology for your unwarranted personal insults.

@xtisme

No ‘guessing’ involved, as your subsequent paragraphs banged on about this quite clearly.

So, you admit it was clear what I was saying when you read the post all the way through, but you decided to include the feigned confusion, phony indignation, and personal insults anyway. Cute.

Simple (and insulting) disagreement doesn’t prove your point. What you are offering is your personal opinion (re bin Laden’s - and some posters here - understanding of democracy). At least I provided some factual information to back up my opinion that bin Laden most likely does understand that power derives from the people in a democracy (if this were a civil debate, I would provide more - it was only a quick search example).

What facts are you basing your opinion on? You’ve yet to provide anything but vitriol and condescending sarcasm to anyone on this thread who questions your opinions. If you are still standing by your opinion I would ask you for some factual info to support it.

@xtisme

The question I had was how your first paragraph related to my quotes and all of it tied in to Bush being stupid. Hey, if it made sense to you, I suppose its all good.

The example remark about G. Bush was quite obviously an analogy: Many posters have made that remark here (G. Bush is an idiot). You have consistently disparaged that opinion in past threads. On what basis do you disparage that opinion? Why is it okay for you to express your opinion about bin Laden’s understanding, but an equally “factually unsupported” opinion of Bush is worthy of scorn? Are you beginning to see the analogy? Personally, I don’t think you are that thick - I think you are being deliberately disingenuous (why is another question)…

@xtisme

Well, I don’t know if you wished I had or not, but you’ve certainly not shown that I DID say anything like ‘they hate us for our freedom’, or that they were stupid ignorant so and so’s, or any other such dippy shit.

Unless your name is “western propaganda” you will note that I obviously did not say that you said that. Deliberately disingenuous again…

@xtisme

Terrorists have their own agendas. They generally DON’T know OR care where the power derives from in a nation…they are simply about causing terror. They come from another environment, totally different than ours. Hell, even folks from Europe, who ARE in a democracy still don’t really understand how the US works (and vice versa of cours). Again, I’m sure on an intellectual basis some of the terrorists (maybe even ObL) ‘understands’ the US…but its only a surface understanding. But they simply don’t need to deeply understand how the US operates to know that if they fly a plane into a building full of civilians, its going to cause terror in a population.

Again, your opinion only. All you are saying here is that anyone who doesn’t agree with your version of how US democracy works are somehow deluded or limited.

Hey, aren’t you the same guy who’s said he has “no idea” why his own wife likes George Bush? And yet you feel qualified to determine bin Laden’s frame of mind? You know more about bin Laden than your own wife??? Astonishing.

@xtisme

He equates the American people with sheep paying the bills for an imperalist war machine, not of empowered citizens involved in the decision process.

Please explain how I was involved in the decision process to bomb/invade Iraq, other than being a taxpayer. Believe it or not, there are many people in the US who feel they were NOT involved in that decision. Most of them, however DID pay taxes that allowed the funding of said bombings/invasion (hence the cry: Not in our name!).

@xtisme

You REALLY think this shows a deep understanding of the US people? If so I can only shake my head.

Sure, you can “only shake your head” because you can’t support your opinions with anything but ridicule. Others here have asked for more clarification from you too, only to be met with derision or being ignored. I know you are “tired”, but so is your sarcastic, insulting ranting. Explain yourself properly (this isn’t The Pit, it’s GD) or give it a rest.

[devilsknew]

@Jman

Well, I am one of those soldiers who is serving in the Iraq war who has never, and still does not agree with the war. Why am I here then? Well, that’s easy…6.5 years ago I signed a contract agreeing to serve at least 4 years in the Active Army in exchange for the government paying for my college. When I signed up, it was a different time, with different expectations. I agreed to serve in defense of my nation, and to protect our allies, etc, etc. When I signed up, Bush wasn’t president, and there was virtually zero chance of us invading Iraq.

Shortly after I started my service, 9/11 happened, and I supported our actions in Afghanistan. The Iraq war I never thought was justified…but I don’t get a choice in the matter. It’s one of the things that makes our military work. If soldiers ONLY fought in the causes they truly believed wholeheartedly in, we would have an extremely weak national defense, as we could never accurately estimate troop levels for rotations, and more. For instance, if I originally agreed with the war in Iraq (I didn’t, but for sake of argument…), but after finding no WMD, decided that I didn’t like the way things were going…I’d be able to leave. If we were allowed to choose the conflicts we fight, then the huge loss of troops after that point would leave those who stayed in a situation of almost certain death. Ultimately, this would cause the failure of basically ANY military operation at ANY time…because troops would always want to get out.

For me…I am here in the war because there’s really not an option. Here are my options:

1. Do my duty, that I signed up for and agreed, contractually, to fulfill, despite not agreeing with the current action. Do what I can in this war, which to me means I need to bring all my soldiers home alive. Finish my service in a year and a half. Leave the Army when my time is up. Go on to successful civilian career.

2. Refuse to go to the war. Get thrown in prison for willful disobeyal of a direct order, missing movement, conduct unbecoming, etc, etc, etc. Get dishonorably discharged. As a result of the dishonorable discharge, never hold a job of ANY significance the REST OF MY LIFE. Essentially, throw my Ivy League degree out the window, and force my wife and I to live off her teachers salary plus my burger flipping wages. Ultimately destroy any chance of a meaningful career.

What would you do? Anyway…I disagree with the current administration on a huge amount of issues, but I respect Bush as my commander-in-chief, and I will obey his orders. I signed on to protect my country, and I don’t get to make the choice of what orders I obey. The reason the defense of our country works and the might our our military is so great is because everyone obeys the (legal) orders of those above them. Without that structure and the willingness to do things that you might not agree with, our country would be essentially defenseless. The only time we have a choice about these actions is every four years. I will not be voting for Bush, but during the time I’m in the Army, he is my commander, and I will follow him.

Support the troops…they are the people (tons as young as 18 and 19) who signed up to protect our country from the bad guys. While the current action may not be directly protecting the nation, without those soldiers, our country would not be free. Without a standing military, the US would not last 5 years. Just the presence of these soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen deters enemy action against the US, and if that alone is the only reason to support them, then that should be good enough. The leaders of the country make the decisions of who to go to war with…not the soldier on the ground. The soldier on the ground keeps you free.

Jman

The Catch-22 of war.
Who has made the true sacrifice in the tempest of spirit? Who has displayed moral courage beyond the pale? Who has respected life?
Jman or Camillo Mejia?

This is not rhetoric, rather questions pondering in the light of intellectual honesty.

(Thanks to all for an incredibly enlightening thread, many ideas about democracy and what it means to be a part of democracy. Many diverse and personal visions of democracy! Luvin you all!)