No, simon, I'm saying you don't have a clue about what you are talking about - now LET IT GO before I say some things that I really don't want to.
You asked the question, missy. If you didn't want to talk about it, you shouldn't have brought it up.
Bringing it up and then making threats to anyone who disagrees with your take is bullying.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
GaryKelly wrote:I'm astonished that you thought I was referring to you. Perhaps something in my post resonated?
I'm also astonished that you'd place so much credit in wistful hindsight, "If only that hadn't happened then, this wouldn't have happened now." Wow. That's a profound and truly valid analysis eh?
That's what I disagree with, jg old chap, your hyping up Ken Livingstone's (understandable) sop to the masses as though it were The Sermon on The Mount. Read my earlier post properly (rather than viewing it as a personal attack) it might help you to put Mr Livingstone's statement into some perspective.
I don't get it; first you say you weren't referring to me, then you say you were. Your second statement here cancels out your point... old chap.
GaryKelly wrote:...He's right of course. "If only that hadn't happened all those decades ago, I suspect this might not be happening today." There. I agree with him, And since you agree with him, I agree with you. Astonishing indeed.
There is a *big* difference between ""If only that hadn't happened ..." and "If only that hadn't been *done*...". What "happened" was not just some natural consequence, it was deliberate interference and manipulation for power and for corporate and personal gain.... that had/has far and long reaching consequences for many more people than those directly involved... including, but not limited to the desperate acts of terrorists, whether motivated by righteous indignation, or by extreme religious beliefs. The *actions* of people in power have *re*actions and consequences. When those actions are illegal and immoral, we should not just say "but that was then, this is now", or "survival of the fittest", unless we are prepared to let someone else decide just who is more "fit".
And the winners are usually the ones who get to write the history books.
missy wrote:and simon - I asked jGilder for a clarification (which he did)
NOT you.
Wow, you've got great communication skills. Your last 3-4 messages in this thread is about how Simon "doesn't have a clue" and about how mad you're gonna get if he doesnt drop the subject. You sure got very nice arguments to support your point. :roll:
If you regret things you say, maybe that's an anger management board you ought to browse
missy wrote:"I gather you're not equipped to argue that blind obedience is moral, then."
No, simon, I'm saying you don't have a clue about what you are talking about - now LET IT GO before I say some things that I really don't want to.
I agree with Simon’s points about accountability. Even though I consider the commanders to be more responsible for ordering the soldiers to do those things, it doesn't automatically forgive the soldiers because they were just following orders.
Having said that I can also understand why Missy would be extremely sensitive about this issue with her son currently serving. The families that have to witness the effect of their loved ones engaging in such horror are going through enough without having to heap on top of it the issue of their loved one's accountability. This is all part of the tragedy in waging an illegal senseless war in Iraq.
jGilder wrote: The families that have to witness the effect of their loved ones engaging in such horror are going through enough without having to heap on top of it the issue of their loved one's accountability. This is all part of the tragedy in waging an illegal senseless war in Iraq.
I am just reposting this because it's a very good thing to point out amidst this heated rhetoric . I wish I didn't think that some of your strongest statements and their effect may someday fall upon the heads of the returning soldiers. By your statement, you prove that it's not what you want to happen. And I agree that its part of the tragedy.
My desire to not let it happen again was one of my strongest reasons for opposing Kerry. I really felt that his policies might have led to Vietnam redux; I felt his entire demeanor and candidacy stunk of it. I am also hoping that whatever candidate gets chosen by the Democrats will not fall prey to promising a withdrawal date because of all that will follow.
jGilder wrote:... Having said that I can also understand why Missy would be extremely sensitive about this issue with her son currently serving. The families that have to witness the effect of their loved ones engaging in such horror are going through enough without having to heap on top of it the issue of their loved one's accountability. This is all part of the tragedy in waging an illegal senseless war in Iraq.
Indeed. However, many people share that situation, and even they don't all agree on just where the 'buck stops'. Again, the culpability is ultimately on the shoulders, or in the lap of those who tell the soldiers what to do. The very nature of the military is to follow orders... you don't get through boot camp if you don't learn to do instead of stop and think. That is why it is of utmost importance that those in power, who *do* have the power to make the decisions, *never* send our troops into harms' way without adequate call, equipment, support and an exit strategy... all of which was done in this particular instance.
When we are asked to "Support Our Troops", part of that is to hold those who use them wrongly responsible.
anniemcu
--- "You are what you do, not what you claim to believe." -Gene A. Statler
--- "Olé to you, none-the-less!" - Elizabeth Gilbert
--- http://www.sassafrassgrove.com
I am also hoping that whatever candidate gets chosen by the Democrats will not fall prey to promising a withdrawal date because of all that will follow.
"All that will follow" is inescapable, regardless of the colour of the next administration.
If it's any comfort to you, the long-suffering Iraqis are going to bear the brunt.
You can't vote for winning the war--that option was never on the table.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
TomB wrote:... Yep, but don't get them confused with people who speak out against what their leaders are doing because they love their country, not hate it... Tom
Amen!!!!
anniemcu
--- "You are what you do, not what you claim to believe." -Gene A. Statler
--- "Olé to you, none-the-less!" - Elizabeth Gilbert
--- http://www.sassafrassgrove.com
The Weekenders wrote:... My desire to not let it happen again was one of my strongest reasons for opposing Kerry. I really felt that his policies might have led to Vietnam redux; I felt his entire demeanor and candidacy stunk of it. I am also hoping that whatever candidate gets chosen by the Democrats will not fall prey to promising a withdrawal date because of all that will follow.
I find this interesting (genuinely) considering that Kerry actually served in Nam, worked to stop it, and to expose the lies that were used to hide the truth. Of the candidates available, he seems the one that would have been least likely to put up with a rush to war on poor evidence.
anniemcu
--- "You are what you do, not what you claim to believe." -Gene A. Statler
--- "Olé to you, none-the-less!" - Elizabeth Gilbert
--- http://www.sassafrassgrove.com
The Weekenders wrote:
My desire to not let it happen again was one of my strongest reasons for opposing Kerry. I really felt that his policies might have led to Vietnam redux; I felt his entire demeanor and candidacy stunk of it. I am also hoping that whatever candidate gets chosen by the Democrats will not fall prey to promising a withdrawal date because of all that will follow.
Well, barring an impeachment or something (we can wish...), no democrat can promise a withdrawal date which is less than three years (plus) hence. You're a pessimist then. Sounds like Vietnam coming again after all...
Steve
"Last night, among his fellow roughs,
He jested, quaff'd and swore."
They cut me down and I leapt up high
I am the life that'll never, never die.
I'll live in you if you'll live in me -
I am the lord of the dance, said he!
The Weekenders wrote:
My desire to not let it happen again was one of my strongest reasons for opposing Kerry. I really felt that his policies might have led to Vietnam redux; I felt his entire demeanor and candidacy stunk of it. I am also hoping that whatever candidate gets chosen by the Democrats will not fall prey to promising a withdrawal date because of all that will follow.
Well, barring an impeachment or something (we can wish...), no democrat can promise a withdrawal date which is less than three years (plus) hence. You're a pessimist then. Sounds like Vietnam coming again after all...
Steve
No, it's the act of announcing a date that would hearten anyone with a plan to take over Iraq, from within or without. i guess that's not clear.
The Weekenders wrote:
No, it's the act of announcing a date that would hearten anyone with a plan to take over Iraq, from within or without. i guess that's not clear.
I don't think it matters, The folks in Iraq aready know that the US has a limited appetite for being there. They don't need a date to know that they can wait you out. It's obvious. George Bush's declarations that the US will stay there "as long as it takes" ring hollow. You can't afford to be there as long as it's going to take and they know that.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
