POLL: Democrats Should Condemn MoveOn

[mhouse2001]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

I hope the people who are willing to degrade the character of our military leaders are willing to take responsibility should my son or other parents' sons and/or daughters are wounded or killed by the increased moral of our enemy.

You're going to blame other Americans if your kid dies? Wow, let's blame the other 6 billion humans who don't support this war. You choose to lay a guilt trip on everyone else because they don't agree to support a war that serves no purpose whatsoever. If you believe in the war, go fight it yourself. Don't ask me to salute you, though. The military and its actions are not sacred and the people involved are not infallible. I owe them nothing and they owe me nothing. A military comprised of soldiers is created when civility is abandoned; therefore, the existence of a military represents humanity at its lowest. Humans killing other humans is clearly the worst behavior imaginable. To make demands upon anyone to REVERE them is beyond arrogance.

Simple solution: If you stopped loving war so much, it would go away. You can't have a war without participants. If the government thinks just saying No is OK for drugs and sex, why can't the same be applied to war?

[Rggr]

[quote=TriMT7;1551813]Our "enemy" wouldn't exist if military men weren't used as pawns sent into harms way by politicians and business elite for "extra-curricular" purposes, like deposing regimes that nationalize oil, or invading countries on behalf of fruit companies.[quote]

This enemy existed long before any of this. The Barbary pirates terrorized people back in Jefferson's time. If it's only our policy, how do you explain why they terrorize people all over the world, including their own.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

Simple solution: If you stopped loving war so much, it would go away. You can't have a war without participants. If the government thinks just saying No is OK for drugs and sex, why can't the same be applied to war?

Sorry, not liking war doesn't make it go away. I hate crime, but I can still be assaulted by a sociopath.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

You're going to blame other Americans if your kid dies? Wow, let's blame the other 6 billion humans who don't support this war. You choose to lay a guilt trip on everyone else because they don't agree to support a war that serves no purpose whatsoever. If you believe in the war, go fight it yourself. Don't ask me to salute you, though. The military and its actions are not sacred and the people involved are not infallible. I owe them nothing and they owe me nothing. A military comprised of soldiers is created when civility is abandoned; therefore, the existence of a military represents humanity at its lowest. Humans killing other humans is clearly the worst behavior imaginable. To make demands upon anyone to REVERE them is beyond arrogance.

Simple solution: If you stopped loving war so much, it would go away. You can't have a war without participants. If the government thinks just saying No is OK for drugs and sex, why can't the same be applied to war?

It's not the disagreeing with the war that's the problem. It's the demeaning of our troops and their leadership that motivates our enemy to try that much harder to kill our young men and women. For that, those who engage in these tactics must shoulder much of the responsibility for their deaths and injuries. You can either feel guilty or remorse, whichever motivate you to support our troops instead of insulting their character.

[7h3.6h057]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

It's not the disagreeing with the war that's the problem. It's the demeaning of our troops and their leadership that motivates our enemy to try that much harder to kill our young men and women. For that, those who engage in these tactics must shoulder much of the responsibility for their deaths and injuries. You can either feel guilty or remorse, whichever motivate you to support our troops instead of insulting their character.

you can support the troops without supporting the war. its a pretty clear distinction.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Rggr

I do not trash Kerry for his service. I respect him for it. The conversation was about the supposed difference between the treatment of moveon.org and the swift boat guys. Are you so used to taking things out of context that you missed that?

The Swift Boat Veterans lied, and deliberately lied, on many levels. One of these was in spending a significant amount of time in seeking to establish that the wounds which earned Kerry various of his Purple Hearts were not as the result of enemy fire, but rather were self-inflicted wounds, leaving the reader to wonder what sort of clumsy sleaze this guy might be to purposely, or even accidentally, wound himself, and then go running off, trying to fib his way into a Purple Heart over it. The argument is a fallacy of equivocation, and the Swift Boaters knew that. Self-inflicted as used by the Navy in 1969 referred to what would today more likely be called 'friendly fire'. A self-inflicted wound was that which resulted from any dischange of US weapons while engaged in action with an enemy or suspected enemy. Under Navy regulations, such wounds were unambiguously legitimate grounds for a Purple Heart citation and many thousands of them were awarded on just such grounds. Thus the Swift Boat investment of time and energy on this point was utterly without significance to the matter of whether Kerry legitimately earned his Purple Hearts or not. He did, and they knew that full well. But they made the argument anyway simply so they could dangle the (in this case) equivocal word 'self-inflicted' in front of an unsuspecting public and let nature take its course. This may make them more clever liars than most, but it makes them liars indeed...

[ParkTwain]

Have fun:
Media Matters - Before MoveOn's "General Betray Us," there was Limbaugh's "Senator Betrayus"

//
Summary: Rush Limbaugh has called the MoveOn.org "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" advertisement "contemptible" and "indecent," but months earlier, on his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Senator Chuck Hagel: "Senator Betrayus." Though Limbaugh has taken exception to accusations that he has attacked the patriotism of his political opponents, the "Senator Betrayus" remark is one of several instances in which Limbaugh has done so.
//

[mhouse2001]

Originally Posted by Rggr

Sorry, not liking war doesn't make it go away. I hate crime, but I can still be assaulted by a sociopath.

I didn't say to 'not like' war. I meant to imply that if you avoid devoting energy to it, it will ceast to exist. By devoting energy to something, you feed its existence. By consciously directing your energy elsewhere, the object once focused upon diminishes. It's difficult for most to understand and even more difficult to put into practice, but this universal law works. Both pro-war and anti-war positions support the war in the final analysis. Both positions are directed at the war. If one really wants the war to stop, focus on something else. That's why I said you can't have war without participants. I'm asking people to stop participating in it. This simple solution would be used by millions and would succeed if people a) knew they had such power, and b) were willing to accept the responsibility for what they create.

Your hatred of crime attracts crime to you. You must love safety, not hate crime if you want to be free of sociopaths. Fear brings the feared right at your doorstep. Our government knows this power and that's why it wants us to be afraid, to create enemies of each other. How else do you get people to do the exact opposite of what they know to be right? It's the abdication of our own individual and apparently limitless power, the forfeiture of our own minds that's to blame for all of this. I haven't achieved nirvana on this yet, but I know I'm on the right path.

Sorry, I digress. Back to the subject at hand...

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

I didn't say to 'not like' war. I meant to imply that if you avoid devoting energy to it, it will ceast to exist. By devoting energy to something, you feed its existence. By consciously directing your energy elsewhere, the object once focused upon diminishes. It's difficult for most to understand and even more difficult to put into practice, but this universal law works. Both pro-war and anti-war positions support the war in the final analysis. Both positions are directed at the war. If one really wants the war to stop, focus on something else. That's why I said you can't have war without participants. I'm asking people to stop participating in it. This simple solution would be used by millions and would succeed if people a) knew they had such power, and b) were willing to accept the responsibility for what they create.

Your hatred of crime attracts crime to you. You must love safety, not hate crime if you want to be free of sociopaths. Fear brings the feared right at your doorstep. Our government knows this power and that's why it wants us to be afraid, to create enemies of each other. How else do you get people to do the exact opposite of what they know to be right? It's the abdication of our own individual and apparently limitless power, the forfeiture of our own minds that's to blame for all of this. I haven't achieved nirvana on this yet, but I know I'm on the right path.

Sorry, I digress. Back to the subject at hand...

If you do not have participants, you do not have war, but you can still have bombings.
I have not been a victim of crime, partially because I am not naive and I tend to make good decisions, but I can still be a victim of random crime whether I'm afraid of it or not.

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

Have fun:
Media Matters - Before MoveOn's "General Betray Us," there was Limbaugh's "Senator Betrayus"

//
Summary: Rush Limbaugh has called the MoveOn.org "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" advertisement "contemptible" and "indecent," but months earlier, on his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Senator Chuck Hagel: "Senator Betrayus." Though Limbaugh has taken exception to accusations that he has attacked the patriotism of his political opponents, the "Senator Betrayus" remark is one of several instances in which Limbaugh has done so.
//

Bbbbbut, the military is untouchable!!! Any criticism is traitorous!