Sorry, Jodi. I did not mean to offend.
Was I short again? Sometimes I come across that way, but I don’t mean to. I’m not offended. I was just a little puzzled that your response to my post was about my name. But it didn’t offend me. Look, here’s proof → 
And yes, I know what “ruat caelum” means. I had the whole thing as my sig for a while, but then I scaled back.
Fiat justitia, ruat caelum. “Let there be justice, though the heavens fall.”
In the Army that name is used to refer to guys who move in on wives while their husbands are on duty. I certainly know that there are people named Jodi who are not guity of that. And I did not mean to suggest it. It just struck me as funny, again sorry.
This reminded me of an article Peggy Noonan wrote last year called We Can Take It:
Could someone tell me this isn’t using the prospects of a high body count to further a political agenda? Is this just as offensive as the point made by Dinsdale - albeit for a different purpose?
Of course, in typical fashion, she actually has the nerve to say, after all that:
Huh??? Didn’t she just outline a propaganda routine for those deaths herself?
Just curious if anyone who is pitting Dinsdale would defend the idea from this perspective.
(FTR, I find both ideas offensive, but free speech blah blah blah)
Just curious. Where is it said that patriotic means you’re an American? This must be the only dictionary I don’t own.
Thanks for enlightening me, I promise to hit Amazon minutes later.
The Boards are owned and hosted by an American company on servers presumably located in an American city. One might safely assume that ‘patriotic’ here refers to the United States.
Yes, what I said was a bit tongue in cheek. I’ve seen many posts about “patriotism” being a slam against Americans. Trying to post a little sarcasm, obviously I didn’t do it well enough. Sorry for the confusion.
One thing that Dinsdale glossed over:
The Republicans will suddenly magically become fiscally conservative again when Kerry gets elected. They swallowed Bush’s $540 billion Medicare bill without a fight, but they will resume squinting at gnats when it’s Kerry proposing the bills.
So, in other words, both an administrator and a long-time member agree that Dinsdale was trolling. He is also in violation of Lynn Bodoni’s dictum of not wishing death on someone.
Four examples, every one right on the money.
I posted that he had recently completed a tour in Iraq, and that he had colleagues who were still on duty there. Which word didn’t you understand?
Nobody. Since this is irrelevant, it makes no difference.
See above for Gaudere’s assumption that Dinsdale was behaving as if he lived under bridges.
So, when Dinsdale said that he hoped there would be lots more American casualties in Iraq, you think he didn’t mean it. In other words, you agree with dropzone’s and Gaudere’s assessment of his motives. And mine, and the poster in the locked thread who quoted Dinsdale as intending not to subscribe. In other words, this is a case of suicide by mod.
And the next time some one hopes for a bunch more Matthew Shepards because it creates sympathy for gays, you will call them “crybabies” too, won’t you?
As ever, Sam Stone hit the mark exactly, and deserves the last word:
Regards,
Shodan
What a novel interpretation of Gaudere’s words. Let’s walk down memory lane:
Emphasis added.
Let’s also note that terrorists and Dinsdale aren’t the only ones that use a utilitarian argument to justify their barbarism. Else how do you justify the deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq, deaths that the US absolutely could have avoided causing simply by not invading?
Jodi, I disagree strenuously with Dinsdale, but I don’t see what he’s saying as any more beyond the pale than what the Administration is saying. The Administration has deliberately taken actions that they knew would result in the deaths of innocent civilians, because they thought that by doing so, in the long run fewer innocent lives would be lost. Dinsdale is simply calling for that from a different angle.
I think both are horrifyingly wrong.
Daniel
I do not interpret Dinsdale’s OP as wishing death for American soldiers at all and I think some people here are overkneejerking. Dinsdale does not even wish for an American defeat. Dinsdale wishes to discuss whether more casualties in the short term could mean saved lives in the long term and this seems like a valid question to me.
Furthermore, who cares what anyone wishes? Whether I wish death on someone else or someone else wishes death on me, as long as we do nothing to further our wishes it makes no difference what we wish. My internal wishes are irrelevant to anyone but me.
Even wishing for American defeat in Iraq is not directly wishing for American deaths any more than wishing for American vistory is wishing for Iraqi deaths. On the grand scheme of things one can wish or hope or prefer victory for one side or the other and, although this implies death of individuals, it does not mean one wishes those deaths directly. One can wish for an American victory and that does not mean he would wish for Iraqi deaths. Likewise, one can wish for an Iraqi victory without wishing for American deaths.
Innocent lives are just as valuable whether they are American or Iraqi and I would consider an American soldier to be a victim as much as an Iraqi fighter. If it came to it I would consider the responsibility for their deaths to be distributed among the politicians who lied and the voters who support them. I cannot see how they can escape responsibility. So, if you are looking to place actual blame, you can point your finger at the White House and at those who vote for Bush. Saying “I wish Americans will die” is meaningless. Voting for those who send Americans to kill and die for no moral reason is an assumption of responsibility.
I feel very sorry for every life lost, of any nationality, for every injury, for all the pain being caused and suffered. The American soldier who was sent to Iraq is as much a victim of circumstances as the Iraqi trying to kill him. I cannot blame them as individuals. As individuals they are doing what they believe is right and circumstances have put them in the unfortunate situation of trying to kill each other. But I can see how one is serving the cause of aggression and the other one is defending his homeland and so, I prefer one side over the other.
The big picture has to be evaluated separately. In my opinion the USA has launched a war of agression which I cannot justify and I believe that it is a good thing for the entire world, including the USA and its people, if the agressor pays a heavy price for its deed because this will diminish the likelihood of similar acts in the future.
I do not wish death on anybody but the fact is that there is a war in Iraq and people are killing people. If Americans die in Iraq the blame is for those who sent them there. Americans who support president Bush and his policies have, in effect, sent troops to fight for an illegal and immoral cause and I cannot support that. If an American and an Iraqi are fighting today in Iraq, I feel morally obligated to root for the Iraqi because I feel the American cause is immoral. that does not mean I wish death on anybody. I wish there had been no invasion but once we have the present situation I cannot support the aggressor. I feel tremendously sorry for all Americans being killed as they are as much victims as anyone else. I feel special sorrow for those Americans who oppose the war and went to fight it as they were ordered.
One can think that if America is forced to pay a high price for this act it will probably be reluctant to do the same thing again any time soon. And when I talk of high price I do not only mean casualties but also in international relations with other countries, the huge deficit brought on by the cost of the war, etc. In any case, these consequences are not the fault of those who may rejoice in seeing the USA face them, they are the direct consequence of the actions of the American government. So, if others may rejoice, just ignore them and send your complaints to the White House who created the mess which is giving others joy. Actions count, not words or wishes or feelings.
JM: Perhaps you have descended to the point where you wish some inocent people death so that others might have a better life. I’m not there yet, nor do I wish ever to be.
Actually, isn’t that the rationale behind support for any war (except the impossibly rare ones that don’t kill any civilians)? Aren’t we justifying our invasion of Iraq with the rationale that even though we killed (and continue to kill) many innocent Iraqis, it will be worth it in the long run because the survivors will be better off without their previous government?
I don’t think that that makes it okay explicitly to wish for the inevitable “collateral damage” that consists of the deaths of the innocent, and I repudiate Dinsdale’s doing so. But I don’t think that we should gloss over the fact that we are implicitly making that very same wish every time we support going to war.
Hey all. Glad to see some of the debate occurring here, that I had hoped to see follow my GD OP.
I’ve already apologized to Gaudere for any hassle I unintentionally caused her and the admins. (This post contains some things I previously expressed to her.)
I guess I could have been more circumspect in my word choice. If anything, I may have subconsciously phrased the OP a little - uh - flamboyantly, for a couple of reasons. I have often been frustrated when my reasonably phrased posts sink without a trace. So yeah, probably to some extent I chose my words to attract attention. But I also wanted to make sure the conversation didn’t just wallow around in the middle. It seems that reason and moderation will be met with
more extremism by the Bush administration - which is blindly accepted by the public.
Most accurately, however, I just didn’t spend hours on crafting my post into unassailable language. That’s not how I write my posts. My thought is that if there are any grounds for discussion, that can be fleshed out in subsequent exchanges, without getting unnecessarily hung up on the perfection of the initial presentation.
If I were to post it again, perhaps I would rethink the word “hope.” But perhaps not. I guess I should have foreseen that a bunch of folk would be unable – or would choose to present themselves as unable – to see it as little more than a suboptimal word choice or – at best – a rhetorical device. Of course, defenders of this administration are always eager to pick a convenient tree to focus on, instead of the forest.
My true views are pretty close to what I posted. I am terrified at the prospect of a 2d Bush term. So, to clarify another point some folks have discussed here, my OP was NOT limited to our actions or success in Iraq.
Of course I do not want anyone to die. Civilian or military. US, Iraqi, or other. But Bush has created a situation where soldiers ARE going to die. And there are so many other areas of his policies that I find abhorrent. The danger of a second Bush term, and ALL the policies, appointments, etc. that might entail, scares me far more than the potential loss of a discrete number of soldiers. I truly respect anyone who chooses the military. My son has the goal of attending West Point. But at the same time I am unwilling to place an infinite value on each and every individual serviceperson’s life. If that troubles anyone whose family members chose a potentially risky line of work - too bad.
Folks on the board always seem to pride themselves in their ability to compare and contrast, weigh alternatives, etc. Heck - GD’s 1st page nearly always has discussions of euthanasia, abortion, assassination of foreign leaders, etc. ad nauseum. I was surprised so few folk thought this idea merited even a trip to the scales.
The sentiments in my OP are very ugly. And it really pisses me off that my nation’s leader(s) are pursuing policy that forces me to confront such ugliness. Bush has the temerity to claim he is compassionate. A uniter, not a divider. Yet he seems over fond of divisive and preferential policies. Of course I predicted that any deviation from the party line would be criticized as un-patriotic. Pretty par for the course these days.
One reason I posted this here, and perhaps in slightly extreme terms, is that I feel so much pressure to keep silent about so many aspects of my core beliefs and values in my daily life in a society that seems increasingly jingoistic and uncritical.
I wasn’t trying to troll. Nor did I wish to commit “suicide by mod” or leave the boards with a bang. Over the weekend I had come to the realization that I probably would not subscribe. On the way in to work yesterday morning, I decided to post the GD thread. When I saw the IMHO thread, I entered in. In my mind I did not in any way connect my IMHO post and my GD thread. Feel free to disbelieve me if you wish.
But I certainly admit that I anticipated the reaction to my post would be extreme. I did not believe the strength of folks’ response alone made my post unacceptable.
Again, I apologise to all of the mods and administrators to the extent this caused them any effort or difficulty. I do not apologise to anyone else for expressing my point of view.
Left Hand of Dorkness, the administration hasn’t hoped for the deaths of innocent Iraqi’s. In fact, quite the opposite. Every possible effort was taken to prevent the deaths of them.
Dinsdale hoped for US soldiers to die. Shodan is correct. He is a troll who should be banned.
Well, no, I made no such accusation though I can see where you might think he was trolling. I saw it more as a scream of frustration. His reply in this thread, with the explanation of Utilitarianism and all, seemed more like the bullshit someone comes up with when he’s too embarassed or bullheaded to back down from a stupid position he had taken. You and I have done the same and, rightfully, gotten slapped aroound for it.
[QUOTE]
He is also in violation of Lynn Bodoni’s dictum of not wishing death on someone.
[QUOTE]
Agreed, and I hope he got warned for it. Moreso, I hope he has taken some time away from his computer to regain his perspective. He has sounded increasingly bitter lately and could use some time away from the boards. I did it once and it did me a world of good.
[quote]
My true views are pretty close to what I posted.**
So, in his most recent post Dinsdale admits he actually doesn’t believe what he said. This is textbook trolling.
All the examination of evidence isn’t really needed, now that we have a confession.
All of the people in this thread who are calling another poster a troll and calling for his banning do know that such things are also against the rules don’t they?
Maybe all of you fuckers should be banned 
So, in his most recent post Dinsdale admits he actually doesn’t believe what he said. This is textbook trolling.
All the examination of evidence isn’t really needed, now that we have a confession.
Dinsdale, I’ll try again with something I asked you a year ago and that I feel you sidestepped.
Your son wants to go to West Point. When you get home from work today, how would you feel about sitting him down and saying, “Son, I love you, but if you’re ever in a war like the one going on right now, I’m going to hope that you die. Specifically, I’m going to hope that you get caught in a bomb blast and ripped apart, or shot in the head, or killed by a land mine. Because your death would serve a political end.”
Why or why not?
I just get the impression that you’re not seeing the faces of the folks whose deaths you’re wishing for.
As I said before, your posts are likely to serve the exact opposite of what you want: to the extent your wishes will have any effect, it’ll be to drive decent folks like Jodi away from liberal policies, away from the anti-war movement, and back toward Bush. To the extent that your expressed wishes will have any effect, their effect will be to help Bush get re-elected.
Your actions have consequences. You need to think about them.
Daniel