DontTreadOnMe wrote: i do have to disagree with you about mcg's analogy. but i don't want to get into it with you. my beef is with him and his constant nattering about liberals, bla,bla,bla..
McG's nattering about liberals is not only mirrored but exceeded by the constant derision of "neocons" etc. The conservatives and liberals I respect most are proud of their respective distinctions and don't seem to feel a need to spam every thread with idiotic crap like "idiot in chief", "liberal panzy's" or any other hyper partisan nonsense. This type of flaming only serves to incite further flaming. It is against the TOS, but it's so rampant it is a apparently too tedious to police. When you hear me refer to liberals, the far left, hawks or the far right; I am merely trying to identify the demographic I'm referring to. If you have issues with McG's use of the term "liberal"; I'd rather see you address
that than align yourself with the mob mentality present in this thread. This thread is nothing more than a thinly veiled flame-baiting session for the obvious intention of accusing war supporters who haven't served of cowardice. It matters not at all who, how many, or if the word coward is used; the intention is clear. I've seen McG attacked in this manner more times than I can count and it strikes me as terribly childish, unfair and uncalled for. Anti-war doesn't mean coward. Neither does Pro-war, but hasn't served. The hypocrisy here should be apparent.
Anti-war doesn't mean naive about the dangers of this world. Pro-war doesn't mean naive about the consequences of war. Every generalized assertion to the contrary is the playground variety of flame baiting. You should choose a more appropriate setting to voice your complaints about McG's use of "liberal" if you don't want to be counted with the childish back-slapping BS that's going on here. The author of this thread set out to flame-bait and unjustly accuses an entire generalized group of being cowardly. He, and everyone who jumped on his childish bandwagon since, should be ashamed of themselves. Even if they feel they were just getting even. Unless of course, they believe two wrongs make a right.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote: I've never been a soldier, but don't feel its fair I should be judged a coward for not signing up to be a soldier.
and i agree with you here. it's not for everyone. hats off to those that can do it and do it well.
This agreement surprises me not at all, which is why I was taken aback to see you jump on the above mentioned bandwagon. You usually stand out as an independent thinker who passes on allegiance to such hyper partisan childishness. Where I can't fathom how anyone could think attempting to free the Iraqis is anything but noble; you can't fathom how anyone could think war will accomplish it. Rarely does either of us reach for the Ad Hominem substitute for debate displayed in this thread. Between you and I, reasonable disagreement is the norm.
DontTreadOnMe wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:The pretense of this thread is such that in the event a draft was necessary to defend our nation; only those with the courage to admit their convictions would be eligible for it.
not my interpretation here.
the draft is the great equalizer. everyone eligible gets their chance to stand up for what they believe. "yep, i'll go" or "nope, i don't believe in it.".
The result would remain the same. Think about it.
DontTreadOnMe wrote: my take on this thread, bill, is that some who are the loudest cheerleaders for the iraq war and the most derisive of the anti-war folks don't seem to fully understand that we're not talking about a football game. or as some appear to view it, a simple game between conservatives and liberals.
Yep. And some who are the loudest naysayers about the the Iraqi War and the most derisive of the Pro-War folks, don't seem to fully understand that there is room for reasonable disagreement on the Iraqi War. I don't believe you'd put me in the category you mentioned above, so why ally yourself with the simple-minded generalization? Am I not among the loudest cheerleaders? Read my sig-line again.
DontTreadOnMe wrote: sorry man, there's too much of the rhetoric that was going around during the vietnam war, another mistaken war of choice, for my taste.
seems a lot of people didn't learn a damn thing from that time. or they forgot. or they just don't care.
You've tagged it. "another mistaken war, for
YOUR taste" We don't all view it the way you do, or even agree or disagree for the same reasons.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:and i just feel like, if they didn't learn, don't want to remember or just don't care, they should put their money where there mouth is.
What if they did learn, do remember and do care? My father was (or if you ask him
is forever) a Marine. He agrees wholeheartedly with the action in Iraq and even contemplated trying to get back in, though he's in his 60's.
My stepfather was drafted and served as a door-gunner in a helicopter (too nice of a man for that job, F'd him up bad for many, many years after). He too agrees not only with this action completely, but his guilt from Veitnam is in no small part on account of abandoning people who were later "slaughtered when we didn't finish the job". He would agree with you that that war wasn't our fight, but once there felt we owed it them to do what we promised to do, and on the very rare occasions that he talks about it, still holds that conviction to this day. After doing his duty, in a war he never signed up for, he was chastised as babykiller, spit on and generally regarded as a bastard by the draft dodgers who refused to answer the call. This man wasn't cut out to be a soldier and would never have volunteered... claims he's never been in even a fist fight in his entire life... yet he still served with honor, dignity and if the war had proved to be more important than it did, would have been regarded as an American Hero... not a baby killer. Should such a man be forced to choose between his conviction that the Iraqi war was necessary or pretend he doesn't believe in it because he isn't, himself, cut out to be a soldier? Bullshit.
Like him, I believe I would answer the call to service if I were drafted. The FACT that I haven't volunteered for it grants no one the right stifle my opinions, suggest I should put my money where my mouth is or otherwise imply I'm too cowardly to do so... accept those who have actually done so themselves. I wouldn't agree, but I would hear it from them with some shame and little complaint. The funny thing is; I can't recall any of those brave souls ever doing so. It is generally the smug hypocrite, who's just as opinionated, who thinks they've found some justifiable way to insult those who disagree with them. They haven't. They've found a childish playground taunt and I'm sorry to hear you concur with it.
DontTreadOnMe wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:hurl insults like baby-killer and burn the flag, all the while exercising the very freedoms the targets of their insults provide. The author of this thread has stated "I can assure you that I have no phoney concerns for the military ... the more of them that get killed off ... the better!" and "When I heard about Pat Tillman being killed by friendly fire, I about broke a rib from laughing so hard!" Some leader you all have chosen to follow.
i agree that those statements are reprehensible. and represent the minority of anti-war people every bit as much as some here represent the zealotous liberal hating minority of mainstream americans.
i really do believe that people of good will, be they conservative, centrists or liberals have nothing but good wishes for the soldiers fighting in iraq and afghanistan.
I know this about you which is why I know you don't belong aligned with some of the hyper partisan idiocy mentioned above.
DontTreadOnMe wrote: it's our country's current leadership, that is using young american men and women in a war of ideology, not of need, in iraq that is deserving of scorn and the word coward. they've earned it. twice now.
Here, we usually reasonably disagree.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:see, here's the thing, to me; supporting a war is not the same as fighting that war.
so it's entirely bogus for someone to think that yelling at "liberals" and "doves" and all of that is the same as being a soldier. it's not.
does that make sense to you ?
[/color]
[/quote]Absolutely and I concur completely. The problem is that nothing in this thread separates the hyper partisan right who may rightly deserve your scorn from the reasonable man who simply disagrees. The generalization is as idiotic as the generalization that Anti-War people are so, because they are cowards.
It is equally bogus for someone to think that yelling at "conservatives" and all of that is the same as volunteering for the Peace Corp. All are entitled to their opinions and blanket insults of either group who hasn't volunteered prior to opining are as infantile as they are uncalled for. No?
C.I., I re-quoted the referenced quote from Anon in the post just above (he authored this thread). Do you want to see in it's own quote boxes? OK
