| Author | Message | ||
     themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3118 Registered: 12-2001  |
"Be About Freedom" is slightly more annoying than "Be About Peace". How about being about writing something original that doesn't be about awkward wording? I know, "Be Free" won't work, because it might imply being unwilling to die in the hot sand for no good reason. "Being About" freedom means making yourself busy with the work of "freedom" as defined by the GOP - like a drone bee or something. How about "Freedom Through Obedience" ? "Freedom is Slavery"? "Be About Freedom" Sucks. Try again. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10271 Registered: 4-1997  |
"Be About Living in a Police State Where the Truth is the First Victim" | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2908 Registered: 6-2002 |
Confusing thread. Not sure if it's about Iraq, the American Revolution,the French Revolution or "Lawn Art". As for me I generally don't favor any lawn signs, but if I had to choose asthetically, I would prefer "Be About Peace" or "Support Freedom" to "Painting by Charlie", "Roofing by Joe", or "Siding by XYZ". | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 121 Registered: 5-2006  |
Dave - You really shouldn't write such things because it's insulting to people in this world who suffer and live in a constant state of fear and terror in real police states. They’re especially offensive when it comes from someone lucky enough to live in this country where you can post such things on a message board and not have you and your family tortured and executed. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10273 Registered: 4-1997 |
Where did you say you live again?  Saying elsewhere is worse doesn't mean we can't be better. For starters, this atavistic administration needs to stop ignoring the Constitution. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 122 Registered: 5-2006 |
Writing we can do better and claiming we live in a police state are two different things. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 672 Registered: 2-2003 |
Spinal Tap, Re: your attempt to counsel Dave that he are we to understand that you think that your posts are free of insults? Or was your remark to Dave a facetious one? | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 123 Registered: 5-2006 |
Who have I insulted? | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 124 Registered: 5-2006 |
And don't take my quote out of context. His statement was insulting to people who are suffering great injustices because they are suffering great injustices, not because they are hypersensitive. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5672 Registered: 10-1999  |
If "Peace" is the opposite of "War" in the "Be About Peace" signs, And "Peace" is the opposite of "Freedom" in the "Be About Freedom" signs, Does that mean that the "Be About Freedom" signs carry the message that "Freedom" equals "War"? Mr. Orwell, paging Mr. Orwell ... | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10274 Registered: 4-1997 |
The scientists fired by the Bush administration for not backing off on factual evidence of global warming are good enough evidence that we're lead by a sociopathic corporate drone who favors a police state. | ||
| Jersey_Boy Citizen Username: Jersey_boy Post Number: 1560 Registered: 1-2006  |
Nohero, No kidding. Orwell was right on except his date was about 20 years too early. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 2179 Registered: 3-2004 |
Let's disregard the big moves that 43 has made to erode if not eradicate a number of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. That's only a piece of the pie. Focus on the fact that five years into the "war" on terrorism we have not tamed Al Qaeda, we have been surprised by Hamas and Hezbo'allah, we have turned Iraq into a bloody mess, close to civil war (even 43 himself now admits how terrible things are there), we can't organize what's needed to provide a full day of electricity or water in Baghdad, the troops and police we have been training in Iraq can't be depended on to be 100% on our side. We are forcing components of our troop strength to extend their 12 month Iraq tours by four to five months. Our borders, ports, and strategic installations like chemical plants and nuclear facilities are as vulnerable as they were five years ago, and our borders are as tight as a sieve. For all intents and purposes, 43 will be turning over this mess to the 44th president, regardless of which party that person comes from. Please note that four years after Pearl Harbor, we had defeated 3 countries in a worldwide conflict that we fought on four continents, in deserts, jungles, artic conditions, in forests, fields, towns, cities, and on the sea and in the air. At the point where we now are, we can't even get DHS to allocate the real funding that NYC and other big cities need for security. Not only are we no less dependent on oil from the very nations who hate us, but we have no strategy for moving off oil, foreign or otherwise. Be about peace, be about freedom, be about victory--- that's all empty rhetoric. Let's be about getting people into Washington who produce results. | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 807 Registered: 5-2001  |
Spinal Tap: I'm still trying to find a legitimate reason why we are in Iraq in the first place. Will you please explain? Thanks | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 480 Registered: 8-2004 |
Nice post Innis. | ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 1638 Registered: 7-2005  |
All I have to comment on is: "That is – Western liberal nations, with a rule of law, purported respect for human rights, freedom, egalitarianism, etc, etc. " ahhahahaha. That is all...proceed. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1234 Registered: 4-2006 |
I would prefer a sign like : "be about common sense" Sadly it would be lost on progressive fascisti. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5675 Registered: 10-1999 |
To the contrary - if a little common sense was used, the Iraq invasion would not have happened. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 125 Registered: 5-2006 |
Our reasons for going into Iraq have been discussed here and elsewhere ad-nauseam. If you don’t agree with them, that’s fine but don’t pretend you don’t know what they are. And I agree with many of the criticisms made of the Bush administration and our current war efforts. I’ve discussed some on them in various posts. As I’ve repeatedly stated in this thread, I have no problem discussing or debating any aspect of this war and I welcome the debate. I do believe that it is possible to have reasonable, principled, historically based criticism of the course of action we have pursued. What I reject is the position that the murderous ideology we face should be met with pacifism or appeasement. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5677 Registered: 10-1999 |
I don't pretend that I don't know what they are. I know exactly what they are, as do you. And we all know that the reasons given were bull-caca. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4593 Registered: 12-2001  |
What I reject is the notion that because I argued that invading Iraq was a really bad idea from November of 2002 onwards, that somehow that makes me an appeaser. With the exception of a fringe of a few percent of Americans, nobody is saying that we shouldn't fight back against terrorism. However, more than a few percent of Americans are saying this must be done intelligently. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1237 Registered: 4-2006 |
Nohero- Please explain to me why we invaded Iraq. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1741 Registered: 10-2004  |
tjohn - I agree with one minor point of change, that is that we should be fighting back against people that are actively trying to harm us and not be concerned with the abstract that is terrorism. In this way we know Osama Bin Laden and his organization to be a world wide criminal enterprise and as such they should be hunted and captured and then be given a fair trial before killing them. Iraq however is not a criminal enterprise, they were a sovereign state and as such there was no right to invade without prior provocation. The problem of the tactic of terrorism and the environments where terrorists are educated and nurtured should be a separate initiative. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4596 Registered: 12-2001 |
Actually, Hoops, I think the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein might fairly be called a criminal enterprise. If I have a terrorist in my crosshairs, I would be willing to forego the fair trial part. Al Qaeda is not some drug cartel. Drug lords are certainly brutal, but at the end of the day, they are running a business and not trying to make an ideological statemnent. Actually, come to think of it, if I had a big player in illegal drug trafficking in my crosshairs, I might get confused as to whether the trial comes before the execution or vice versa. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5680 Registered: 10-1999 |
FvF - Funny, but I was kinda hoping that you could explain that one to me ... | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 673 Registered: 2-2003 |
Spinal Tap Regarding your query On this thread alone you've insulted people who agree with the slogan "Be About Peace," which includes the vast majority of Americans, by calling them (in separate posts):
and by saying Now that I've answered your question, I'd appreciate an answer to a question I asked you earlier. I've removed my characterization of the war to make it easier for you:
| ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 808 Registered: 5-2001 |
Spinal Tap; I guess you just can't answer. I would really like a short explanation of the reason we are in Iraq from you. All I ever hear from supporters of it is a dance around the question like you just did with criticisms of anti war ideology like the lawn signs this thread attack, but never an attempt for a concrete answer, so again I just ask for a simple explanation to justify why we are supposedly fighting the worlds war on terror in Iraq, and its relevance to 9/11. You can even throw in some "good news out of Iraq' if you like. I honestly don't think you have one. Please answer if you can but skip on the dancing. Your poor feet must be tired by now. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2280 Registered: 8-2003  |
Being "eloquent" or articulate, or reasonable-sounding, or anything else isn't worth much if one is wrong. By no objective standard was our country's plunge into Iraq justified or just or right. By no objective standard has it made Iraq a better place for Iraqis. By no objective standard has it made us safer from al Qaeda. By no objective standard did the main reasons we invaded turn out to be true (regardless of what Bill Clinton may have said in 1998). And that doesn't even include the straw man argument that the people who opposed the Iraq war want "peace at any cost." That's a ludicrous premise. What reasonable mainstream anti-war voice has called for peace at any cost? It's just another misdirection by supporters of the war when they're called to account for their support of an unjust disastrous war. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1935 Registered: 5-2001 |
My favorite are the magnetic 'support our troops' bumper stickers. ("I support the troops, but I'll be damned if that support will mar my sparkling SUV!") | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3120 Registered: 12-2001 |
"Support our trooops without being fool enough to enlist even while arguing that their work is of epochal importance and don't scratch my Nav". | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1249 Registered: 4-2006 |
Nohero- Actually I answered the question on Iraq in the Condi Rice thread. I don't see George Bush as the biggest problem facing the country, I see the ascendancy of "progressive" dems in the democratic party as more of an issue. To me these people are the 21st century equivalent of the isolationists in the U.S. in the late '30s. Like the isolationists of that period didn't understand the Nazi threat, our current progressives don't understand the islamofacist threat. And for that reason they are very dangerous. It's too bad the democratic party has become so intellectually marginalized on foreign policy and millitary issues and no Scoop Jackson-style dems have arisen to take back the party from the loon-lemming contingent. I think every real democrat will end up rueing the day they put Howie Dean in the driver's seat. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7629 Registered: 10-2001 |
well said... | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1936 Registered: 5-2001 |
...meanwhile worldwide terror attacks grow unabated. Uh huh. Got a great policy goin' here. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2283 Registered: 8-2003 |
fvf, opposition to the war in Iraq doesn't mean appeasement - it is and has all along been a common sense reaction to what many of us knew from the start was disastrous policy. how about some specific quotes to back up your claim that progressives don't understand the threats the U.S. faces? how many credible national progressive figures have said the U.S. shouldn't pursue al Qaeda? how many credible voices have suggested we appease bin Laden? yours is just another straw man argument meant to distract from the real issue - the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq, and the war has turned into a foreign policy nightmare. what's dangerous is a blind, unquestioning adherence to a neocon agenda. and the evidence is the disaster that continues to unfold every day in Iraq. | ||
| ess Citizen Username: Ess Post Number: 2878 Registered: 11-2001  |
Supporting our troops is not tantamount to supporting the war itself. Frankly, it would be callous not to support our troops. Innis, eloquent post. I wish people in positions to effect change could be motivated by those sentiments. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 612 Registered: 3-2005 |
EXCUSE ME BUT: It's a flat out lie that opponents of the Iraq war didn't understand the threat. They said that the threat Ken Pollack described (and that Colin Powell and the Chimp described) was bsst managed by containment in Iraq, and that the threat posed by al-Qaeda would only worsen with an invasion of Iraq and that the resources should be spent to take Osama bin Laden out of circulation. They pointed out -- correctly -- that blowing up Iraq and leaving bin Laden on the loose would put America at greater danger in multiple ways: We have now proven on global television that the US military capacity is thin and unable to fight insurgencies or win a peace. We have provided terrorists with an opportunity to improve their anti-personnel devices and tactics in Iraq by sending our "decoys" (read America's youth) over there. And we have left Al Qaeda to rebuild itself in Pakistan, within arm's reach of an expanding nuclear arsenal. A REAL ONE. And of course, day by day, the Bush Administration, unwilling to learn, steeped in their own militaristic fantasies, provokes more and more hatred of America, and more and more people determined to make us pay what they have suffered at the hands of our guns and bombs. Heck of job, bushies. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5385 Registered: 5-2001 |
And it's also the implicit lie that equates 9/11 with Iraq. Every day, administration mouthpieces are starting a sentence with "9/11" and ending it with" Iraq," or vice-versa. When called on it and they can't squirm out, they'll deny that there was a link; but the very next day they're connecting them again. So here we've got FVF, with Straw's simian applause, telling us we're isolationists because we don't approve of our presence in Iraq. Never mind that at the same time we're urging a BIGGER presence in Afghanistan, and a BROADER effort to catch bin Laden. Lies lies lies lies lies. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1253 Registered: 4-2006 |
dave23- That is more reflective of the rise of millitant islam at the moment than our efforts or achievements. Winston- Consider me a recovering or common sense democrat. You cannot apply our western secular, liberal, and consumer society values to understanding the different religion, values, and culture that fuels our enemies. At present the war is not a nightmare, but difficult, the invasion of Iraq was done, and our focus needs to be on the larger geo-political and national security interests involved. Read my comments in the "Condi Rice" thread. tom- tom, tom,tom. Howie Dean knows Vermont, he doesn't know the Middle East. More sophisticated thought and analysis is required. Plus demonizing Straw is not the same as refuting his arguments by good reasoning. | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 810 Registered: 5-2001 |
But why are we in Iraq??????? | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3129 Registered: 12-2001 |
"At present the war is not a nightmare, but difficult..." It's tricky. Bit awkward. A good job of work. |
