| Author | Message | ||
     mcarmel Citizen Username: Mcarmel Post Number: 12 Registered: 7-2002 |
I have become tired of seeing those "Be About Peace" yard signs throughout town and decided to come up with my own "Be About FREEDOM" sign. I have no illusions about changing the minds of any anti-war (at any cost) activists and they certainly are not going to change mine. Thus, I am not inviting a debate. The only power I have is my vote. But if you agree with this competing message, you can buy one for your yard. See http://www.beaboutfreedom.com | ||
| pcs81632 Citizen Username: Pcs81632 Post Number: 88 Registered: 6-2002  |
Why is it that you cannot be in favor of peace AND freedom? I am. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5359 Registered: 5-2001 |
Should be "Be About Rove" | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1366 Registered: 2-2004 |
I'll buy that one. | ||
| Jersey_Boy Citizen Username: Jersey_boy Post Number: 1552 Registered: 1-2006  |
This is from your link: These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: 'Tis dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine December 23, 1776 As a call to arms, from within an oppressed state, to rise up against one's own oppressor these are powerful words. They are not meant to be used to justify violence without regard for it's cause or consequence. Not everyone who is against THIS WAR is against all wars, and to characterize your opponents that way is to mute out their valid arguments. I won't have either on my yard. Like bumperstickers, these yard signs are wholly inadequate for communicating my opinions, which are the outcome of careful thought, and frankly, are liable to change in subtle ways as the circumstances change. J.B. | ||
| FlyingSpaghettiMonst Citizen Username: Noodlyappendage Post Number: 214 Registered: 11-2005  |
War in Iraq = Freedom for Iraqi Women... I think not! | ||
| The Man (est. 1904) Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 669 Registered: 6-2004  |
"Be About Freedom" is a cop-out. In my day, people who were pro-war didn't hide behind euphemisms like "freedom." They were proudly pro-war and said so! | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 605 Registered: 3-2005 |
Yeah! Be About Militarism! BAM! I think it would be more appropriate as an SUV antenna flag than a lawn sign. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 103 Registered: 5-2006  |
I like the effort but I think this may more accurately capture our sentiments. While reasonable people can certainly disagree over the best way to fight this war - it must be fought and our enemies must be destroyed. These enemies of civilization are emboldened by indecisiveness, divisiveness, and peace overtures, which they perceive as nothing more than weaknesses to exploit and evidence that their barbaric tactics are succeeding. They do not want to negotiate, compromise, or debate. They want to establish a worldwide Islamonazi state and will use any means at their disposal, including genocide, the likes of which the world has never imagined, to achieve their goals. Now is the time to press our offensive against those who would gleefully, without a hint of our moral contemplation or hesitation, exterminate our entire civilization if given the chance. To “Be About Peace” at this particular juncture of history is asinine. I came up with this a while back. Feel free to use it. And by the way. Unless you get your history from Mel Gibson movies, the colonists were hardly oppressed. They actually had it pretty good.   | ||
| Jersey_Boy Citizen Username: Jersey_boy Post Number: 1553 Registered: 1-2006 |
"Unless you get your history from Mel Gibson movies, the colonists were hardly oppressed. They actually had it pretty good. " They were being taxed without representation. I got that from a history book. Fine, remove the word "oppressed." Borrowing rhetoric about independence from a foreign government to argue that a foreign government should invade another country is disingenuous. Now do you see my point? J.B. | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 1350 Registered: 5-2003 |
The colonists were not permitted to manufacture ceertain goods, and were forced to purchase them from England at inflated prices. They were also forced purchase tax stamps for many of these imports--remember the infamous Stamp Act. British soldiers could be quartered in the colonists' homes at any time, without any notice, and the colonists would be required to feed these troops. The Americans were not permitted to enter into any alliances or treaties, or to publish any writings that could be considered insulting or critical of England or of the English king (who was actually a German who spoke very little English). The colonists who wanted to sell any of their agricultural products were required to sell only to England, at prices which were set by the English, and which were non-competitive. So the Americans were oppressed economically and politically. Having a on tea foisted upon them was possibly the final straw. They lost patience and dumped the tea in Boston harbor. They were farmers and artisans and tradesmen and professionals who were sick and fed up with dealing with an unresponsive government. They didn't set out to break away from England; all they wanted was the rights that other Englishmen had. You should read the Declaration Of Independance, Spinal Tap. I read it every year, on July 4th. It's a really good read. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 666 Registered: 2-2003 |
Spinal Tap, Are you the same person who argued on this board a couple of years ago that a million dead American soldiers was a price worth paying to achieve victory in Iraq? | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 105 Registered: 5-2006 |
No I didn’t post that. I’ve only been posting on this board a few months. Also, while everyone’s points about the Revolution are correct, none of it constitutes oppression in my mind. And thanks for the recommendation to read the Declaration. I just read it for the first time in my life and while it is written the language of the Enlightenment and the Founders principles were clearly steeped in classical history and philosophy, nothing in there indicates that we were “oppressed” like say – the Kurds were in Iraq or women were in Afghanistan (except for slaves and indentured servants). Fortunately for us and the world, the colonists did revolt because they touched off a movement that had been largely dead since the Roman Republic and that continues to this day. However, in reality, the colonists were among the least taxed and among the most free in the British empire, generally able to go about their business unfettered which is how so many of them built such great fortunes. A feat they would never have been able to accomplish in England. The taxes, that were small compared to what people in England paid, were levied to pay for the debt that England incurred defending the colonies from the French and their Indian allies in the French-Indian War and the continuing cost of protecting the colonies. No, the colonists unfortunately didn’t have a say in the matter but what were they going to vote? No – you can’t tax us to pay for our defense and protection? Even the colonists, for all of their Libertarianism, put in the constitution that taxes could be levied to pay for the national defense (they never mentioned entitlement programs though). Prior to these taxes most colonists paid nothing. Same goes for the quartering of soldiers – a common practice throughout the empire. And Mr. Paine’s famous statement was not just about independence. It was about the fact that in the wake of the Continental Army getting its butt kicked from New York, across NJ, and into PA, in the first few months of the war, many “summer soldiers and sunshine patriots”, who previously were strong supporters of the war, were running for cover believing that the whole affair had been a mistake. You should read the whole paper, much of which is quite applicable today. For example, in one part he goes into what benefit the colonists were deriving by continuing to quibble over wither we should have waited longer to declare independence. In another, he discusses how quickly a nation panics at the first sign of trouble and how quickly that can change. Again, let me be clear, I have no problem discussing any aspect of this war. Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, troop levels, strategy, tactics, oil’s impact, Wahhabi impact, foreign policy outlook, whatever, and I have done so on this board and elsewhere. As long as the discussion does not cross the line into self-defeatism or a transparent effort to destroy a president and regain power versus winning a war. But when I see those idiotic Age of Aquarius signs, insinuating that all we have to do is “Be About Peace” and these monsters will go away, I’m angered, particularly considering our proximity to Ground Zero. | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 479 Registered: 8-2004 |
You forgot to leave space on your sign for "I Support Our Troops" stickers and other meaningless slogans that say absolutely nothing and reflect embarrasingly simplistic thinking. | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 805 Registered: 5-2001  |
Regardless of ones views this sign is a cheap and shameful rip-off that is meant to mock something meaningful a proud young student in our community designed. It is true to the tactics and low standards of the G.O.P., which got us into the "they never report the good news out of Iraq" mess, and I mean mess, we are in in the first place. I suggest that any morons can just keep buying those "refreshing" yellow "support our troops" magnets that are made in China to put on their bumpers as a selfless act and misrepresentation of the definition they have decided to give patriotism, or design something original, the latter probably not an option. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 5345 Registered: 9-2001  |
Paul, you have met your match! | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 2175 Registered: 10-2002  |
What is the actual purpose of any of these signs on the lawn? I see the "End the War" signs and "Be about peace" and the like. Aside from being an advertisement for yourself, what is the actual goal of putting up these signs on your lawn. They always appear to me to be a big "Look at Me! I'm a liberal progressive thinker" sign? But, I can't really see what they're actually accomplishing other than drawing attention to yourself. This is sounding a lot harsher than I mean it - I just truly don't understand why people put the signs up - I feel the same way about bumper stickers I guess. | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 806 Registered: 5-2001 |
Just curious. Do you question the "support our troops" magnets too? I think it's another means of expression. I mean, why do some women sport a mustache? | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 2176 Registered: 10-2002 |
Ilama - the mustache is actually an expression of the "Anti-Wax" movement. I have a bumper sticker about it.  | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10262 Registered: 4-1997  |
 | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 106 Registered: 5-2006 |
Considering what was done to us and the threat we face I have little patience for the “Be About Peace” crowd. It is due to them in large part that the people behind 9-11 thought they could get away with it. They didn’t believe, in fact they still don’t believe, that we have the stomach to do was has to be done. The fact that a child designed the sign says a lot and is excusable, the fact that so many adults buy into it says even more and is inexcusable. Mcarmel – you may want to use this quote on your site: "War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made so by the exertions of better men than himself." — John Stuart Mill For the record, I don’t go in for magnets either. If you really want to support the troops go to this web site and sponsor one: http://www.soldiersangels.com/ At the very least, stop comparing them to Nazis, or accusing them of being murderers, or run around saying that they can’t win. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4584 Registered: 12-2001  |
Spinal Tap, You wrote, "Fortunately for us and the world, the colonists did revolt because they touched off a movement that had been largely dead since the Roman Republic and that continues to this day". Was this the movement towards democracy? This was underway in Britain since the Magna Carta. And I don't believe that the French Revolution was inspired by the American. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 107 Registered: 5-2006 |
Dave - That's a valid argument. "Be About Peace" is not. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 108 Registered: 5-2006 |
While the ideals of the Revolution have historical pedigree going back to the Magna Carta which was among the first efforts to articulate these ideals, I believe the American Revolution was the final, violent, culmination of the rebirth of the notion that sovereignty resided with the people rather than a monarch (or the like), a concept followed by most of the world today. The results reverberate to this day and will continue to do so long after we are worm food. I think the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution but they lacked our enlightened leadership which is why it degenerated into a bloodbath. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4586 Registered: 12-2001 |
Well, this is a topic worthy of a life of research. In any case, the situation of the common man in France under the monarchy was much worse than that of the colonists under a distant king. I think the more repressed people are when they revolt, the more violent will be the revolution. | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 2178 Registered: 10-2002 |
I actually don't have anything against lawn signs and bumper stickers. I understand it's a way to express yourself. I think I'm just curious about the motivation behind putting them up and wonder if people feel they're really changing anything with them or if just the expression is enough (which is fine - nothing wrong with expressing yourself). I look at the Be about Peace signs as a nice gesture and something that people feel good about and that's fine, but signs and bumper stickers just seem to state the obvious. I mean - don't we all want peace? Don't we all want this war to end? It's how, when and why that we may disagree on. I propose that if we have to have signs that we have signs that actually say more about what you're proposing. So for example, instead of "End the War!" I'd like to see a sign that states what method you support to end the war. So you could have signs that say "I support a pullout in 6 months no matter what." or "We should be there until the insurgents give up" or "We should get out now and be done with it". THAT kind of sign would really be making a statement. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5371 Registered: 5-2001 |
The colonists weren't oppressed? Wow, I thought it was retrograde that Rove wants to roll the country back to 1900, or that the religious right wants to roll science back to 1830. But all the way back to 1775? This pretty amazing. Before you know it, we'll be building pyramids. I imagine that they sure felt oppressed when they signed off on And Franklin's "We must all hang together or we shall hang separately" is more than just a pithy phrase; if the revolution had failed the Signers would have been just as dead as any Iraqi who attempted a coup. "Prior to these taxes most colonists paid nothing" is not true; taxes were paid to the colonial legislatures, not to the crown. I would have guessed that the last Tory died in the 1840s some time. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4588 Registered: 12-2001 |
"The colonists weren't oppressed?" Nobody ever said that. What was suggested is that the plight of the French under Louis was worse thant that of the colonists under George. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10263 Registered: 4-1997 |
I'm sure we can end tribalism in Iraq if we can just get them to understand European history, change their language, beliefs, economy, education and monetary system. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 112 Registered: 5-2006 |
Yes it was very strong language. They were, after all, revolutionaries. Consider the Boston Massacre. Most historians today agree that what probably happened was a drunken mob throwing ice balls and rocks at what were probably scared British soldiers. Someone fired, perhaps accidentally, and other soldiers believing they were being fired upon followed suit while the officers were screaming to cease-fire. Tragically, some colonists were killed and wounded. However, the way the story emerged, the British lined up in formation and deliberately massacred peaceful civilians. Just look at the famous engraving of the incident that has a smiling officer holding up his saber giving the command to fire. In my mind, “oppression” conjures images of totalitarianism, secret police, and slavery. Nazi stormtroopers or Gulags. Not colonial America. You wrote it yourself, that colonial legislatures taxed the people. They were largely self-governing and left alone by England. England just wanted them to kick in to pay for the war they just fought to protect the colonies. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4591 Registered: 12-2001 |
Agreed. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 113 Registered: 5-2006 |
Lillb – You bring up a great point. Part of the seduction of the peace at all costs crowds is that they purport to seize the moral high ground through their pacifism. After all, who could be against peace and want war. But what they fail to accept is that there are things worst than war and there is such a thing as a bad or unjust “peace”. Their position is, in fact, immoral because it guarantees the triumph of evil. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10267 Registered: 4-1997 |
Gandhi was immoral? | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 2179 Registered: 10-2002 |
I don't think I would say that people who say they're "for peace" are immoral, I just don't think the statement really says anything. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 115 Registered: 5-2006 |
I was waiting for someone to throw out Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Thank you Dave. Of course they weren’t immoral but their tactics worked only because of who they were used against, the British in the case of Gandhi and the U.S. in the case of MLK. That is – Western liberal nations, with a rule of law, purported respect for human rights, freedom, egalitarianism, etc, etc. Those governments were effectively shamed into compliance because of their failure to live up to their highest ideals. Unfortunately, those tactics only work against such nations. When used against forces that have no shame, what you get is Tiananmen Square. If the U.S. in the 1950s and 60s had been a totalitarian nation, instead of fire hoses, MLK and his followers would have faced tanks and machine gun fire and the survivors would have disappeared into gulags never to be heard from again. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 667 Registered: 2-2003 |
Spinal Tap, I'm glad to know that you're not the person who said a million dead American soldiers are a price worth paying to achieve "victory" in Iraq. How many American soldiers are you willing to sacrifice to achieve "victory" in the Iraq war which was based on falsehoods, which has been prosecuted under incompetent and corrupt leadership, and which has undermined American security? | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 117 Registered: 5-2006 |
Based on your characterization of the war in Iraq – zero. However, if you use my characterization, that it is a just war, connected to the fight against Islamonazism, and a victory would give impetus to the spread of Democratic reform throughout the Middle-East that would lessen the attraction of terrorism and make our nation safer, how many would you be willing to sacrifice? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1736 Registered: 10-2004  |
Spinal Tap - you argue eloquently your points but they are based on a non fact. The 'Be About Peace' crowd are not the ones responsible for allowing 9-11. That would be the war presidents crowd who ignored the warnings of the Clinton administration that Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden were the primary threats to our country. Who refused to allow the intelligence gleaned from the able-danger investigation to be shared with the FBI who were following terrorists in the USA who wanted to learn to fly planes but didnt want to learn how to land. The administration who ignored the August 5th PDB and instead stayed on vacation. The adminstration who never called a meeting to discuss terrorism or terrorist threats despite the warnings received from the previous administration. The Be about peace crowd was not against the retaliation against al-Qaeda when we attacked Afghanistan looking to disable them and capture or kill the leadership, especially bin laden. However the be about peace crowd is not fooled by the war in Iraq and do not agree with the goals of a war of choice to 'fight them over there'. The most useful thing that could be done in these dangerous times would be to track down the loose nuclear materials that were not safeguarded properly after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and we know that this administration has made a fiasco of any chance we may have had of that with the Valerie Plame afair. The country requires military strength for defensive purposes but that does not mean we should exercise that capability for the benefit of a neo-con theory that is quickly being discredited as a pure failure. | ||
| pcs81632 Citizen Username: Pcs81632 Post Number: 89 Registered: 6-2002 |
The Declaration of Independence was a political document, drafted to explain the American position to foreign powers. Because we won the war, the document has morphed into an emotional expression, doubtless because of the Jefferson's dramatic wordsmithing. Keep in mind, most of the Declaration is an idictment of King George III and his administration of the Colonies, and it is only the opening paragraphs that anyone seems to read and remember. An early on example: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Much later in the Declaration: "He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." So, the Declaration, as a political document is stunning. As a moral compass, once you get out of the early paragraphs, it's not something that can give direction to the country. The US Constitution is a much better expression of the American mind. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 120 Registered: 5-2006 |
Thanks for saying I'm eloquent. Coming from you that means a lot. |
