My Dixie Chicks Mindless Rant

[Bill Thompson]

Please give me something more. "War for oil" or something to debate apart from ad hominem attacks. I want an intelligent discussion. That is why I am here.

Thinking that war is the only way does not mean you love war. That is non sequitur. I find it entertaining that the war protestors never suggest an alternative and yet they say something must be done. They just don't have an answer.

Saying that thinking the left is not correct this time does not make you a war-loving fascist and have an erection about war. That is straw man and ad hominim

Saying that people who repeat themselves are proving that they are wrong is also non sequitur. If, for instance, I am falsely accused and imprisoned, I am going to never repeat that I am innocent. Doing so does not PROVE I am guilty.

I am shocked I am hearing logical fallacies here of all places.

I don’t understand this earning of privilege comment either. We earn privilege in this country? What privilege specifically do we earn and how high is the required IQ points and what activity are they supposed to do.

 

[geni]

Why would you think so? And why are the situations fundamentally different?

WW1 and 2 were clashes of major world powers in a total war situation.

The current situation the major world powers are either pretty much on the same side or neutral. No one is in a total war situation

The battles of WW1 were based around people walking towards machine guns. The battles of WW2 were more varried but generaly involved two conventional armies going head to head in some way. The only real exception was the guerrilla warfare in the various areas occupied by the Nazis.

The battles in the "WOT" are battles of occupation against irregular forces useing guerrilla tactics.

The closest historical parrells to the type of war being fought would be the various wars of empire conducted by the european powers and later by the soviet union.

 

[geni]

Now, I have heard that they were influenced by the fact that they were emersed in the UK culture of tabloids where people attack the royality and government in a cruel way.

Nah last I checked the gardian (who don't like the royals for a number of reasons) wasn't a tabloid.

I find it ironic that you think a monarchy has few scared cows than a republic.

 

[geni]

If they are on the same side as far as each other is concerned;

False sadam had his own troubles with islamic radicals and if you remeber around the time of gulf war one bin lardin wanted to be allowed to fight Sadam.

if they support each others efforts;

No evidence

If we are already at war with Iraq for all practical purposes (but feeling until then that they are contained);

Iraq was contained

If the UN and even the Democrats urge and have urged that something had to be done about Saddam

But that something was not war.

isn't it just as ethical to go to war with Iraq as it was ethical to go to war with Germany eventhough Japan had attacked the United Staes in the 1940's?

Germany declared war on the united states.

 

[Bill Thompson]

If they are on the same side as far as each other is concerned; False sadam had his own troubles with islamic radicals and if you remeber around the time of gulf war one bin lardin wanted to be allowed to fight Sadam.


Quote:
if they support each others efforts;
No evidence

I just posted the CNN article that stated Saddam offered refuge for Osama. Here it is again http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/ that is evidence they supported each others efforts. And I think I can dig up about 3 examples in the 9/11 commission report where they had tried to contact each other and work out a deal. But the CNN article is evidence.

Let me be clear. I am not talking about one providing financial support. I am saying that politically they were on the same page.

I think people have short term memory. I remember how Saddam's goverment cheered after 911. It was the only world power that did.

That along with the UN violatoins and along with the fact that we were already at war with them technically paints a less than rosy picture that we could be safe going along as usual. Don't forget that Saddam supported families who conducted terrorist attacks. If you blew yourself up and took out an american interest, Saddam would provide financial rewards to your family. Even with the "containment" you imagined, that sort of activity would continue.

Quote:
If we are already at war with Iraq for all practical purposes (but feeling until then that they are contained);
Iraq was contained

So we thought Al Qaeda was. We were wrong then it is logical that we can be wrong with Iraq. I am not going to gamble with the lives of my friends and family. We had been technically at war with them. It makes sense to go in and finnish them off as ugly as it might seem. It is not the ideal perfect-world situation but in a hard world you have to make hard choices.

Quote:
If the UN and even the Democrats urge and have urged that something had to be done about Saddam
But that something was not war.

Nothing else was taken seriously. Saddam's policy had been to wait out the weapons inspectors until he had a chance to resume his weapons programs. That has come to light in his trial.

I have to say, you are thinking what you and I wish to be true. And not what is really true.

Quote:
isn't it just as ethical to go to war with Iraq as it was ethical to go to war with Germany eventhough Japan had attacked the United Staes in the 1940's?
Germany declared war on the united states.

As I said, it can be logically argued that we were still AT WAR with Iraq. Remember the no-fly zones? THey were trying to shoot us down constantly as we patrolled those areas as Saddam had agreed we could do.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Nah last I checked the gardian (who don't like the royals for a number of reasons) wasn't a tabloid.

I find it ironic that you think a monarchy has few scared cows than a republic.

I made no such claim. I find that ironic.

 

[The Painter]

I really don’t care about the Dixie Chicks. I think they stink. They can say anything they like, but they should realize there are consequences. I believe their records sales have dropped dramatically and their concerts are not selling out. Free speech isn’t always free, sometimes it’s expensive.

 

[Bill Thompson]

WW1 and 2 were clashes of major world powers in a total war situation.

The current situation the major world powers are either pretty much on the same side or neutral. No one is in a total war situation

The battles of WW1 were based around people walking towards machine guns. The battles of WW2 were more varried but generaly involved two conventional armies going head to head in some way. The only real exception was the guerrilla warfare in the various areas occupied by the Nazis.

The battles in the "WOT" are battles of occupation against irregular forces useing guerrilla tactics.

The closest historical parrells to the type of war being fought would be the various wars of empire conducted by the european powers and later by the soviet union.

All this is true.

But you are missing the simularities too. For instance, there was a lot of talk at that time that Germany could be contained and taking Hilter out of power was not necessary. We bought that until it was almost too late. The old adage comes to mind: Learn from history or repeat history.

You are also ignoring the simularities that Germany was beaten down poorly at the end of World War II and it could be assumed that they were not a threat just as Iraq was beaten down at the end of the first Gulf War.

There can be found as many simularities with World War II and today just as there can be found differences. So where does this lead us?

You are implying that I said that World War I was just like the situation today. I made no such claim.

And are you suggesting that just because there are differences historically that the invasion of Iraq is not justified. This does not follow.

If Bush did make a mistake, I would like to hear a more sensible path our country should have made.

Dispite what people here might assume, I was not happy when we invaded. I did not sleep that night. And no, it was not because of excitement, it was worry.

 

[Whoracle]

This is a joke right? You're sitting there laughing your ass off at people taking you seriously right? This is satire of the right wing showing that people would believe it if a right winger had these views right?

 

[RandFan]

The very sort of people offended by Dixie Chicks shame that Bush is from Texas are the ones too dumb to have earned any kind of privilege.

I'm not sure I get this. I haven't seen your response in the Rush Limbaugh thread so I don't really know for sure your position. Are you never offended by the things people say? What does it mean to earn a privilege? This isn't a personal attack just a sincere attempt to understand.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

This is a joke right? You're sitting there laughing your ass off at people taking you seriously right? This is satire of the right wing showing that people would believe it if a right winger had these views right?

I get the same gut feeling. Here we have a new poster (sub 100 posts) taking on not just justification for the Iraqi invasion but framing it in the rights of the Dixie Chicks to denounce it and throwing in a love-connection between Osama and Hussein.

It's nice to see "fresh meat" here (if they are indeed new, not some Karl Rove Minion), but I wish they'd take a minute or 2 and do a bit of searching on the main points of the argument they wish to post and debate.

Still it's refreshing to see that JREF has had positive effect on some of the long-time right-wing posters here ....

Charlie (attaboy Randfan, I knew you had the smarts) Monoxide

 

[bob_kark]

I see a complaint about the Dixie Chicks, but I don't see any course of action you believe should have been taken against them. Am I correct to believe you simply want to berate them because you disagree with their opinion or do you believe some legal action should be taken?

 

[back2basics]

I was one of those who has criticized the Dixie Chicks for not getting that everyone has freedom of speech including those that chose not to go to their concerts and those who spoke out against them. I did so in this forum.

That being said, I don't agree with a word you wrote. They absolutely have the right. Freedom ISN'T free. It requires that we speak out when our conscience moves us to speak out.

The Dixie Chicks where right to speak their minds even if some of us didn't like it. I fear the day when those I don't agree with are too afraid to speak. On that day my rights will have been lost.

Beautifully put

I think that’s what people need to remember.

When we give up a right they are hard to get back.

If we are told we must allow our phone records or mail to be searched to stop terrorism, we may choose to do that, to stay safe. Then the terrorists change tactic and then we must allow our email to be scanned, or web surfing records to be stored and mined.

Giving up our rights means the terrorists are winning.

 

[Tony]

Actually it does not give me an erection at all. Please explain yourself. Why would you think so?

It was a joke.

And why are the situations fundamentally different?

You're kidding right?

 

[richardm]

do you believe some legal action should be taken?

Ironically, their comments may have prolonged the war by giving our enemies motivation to continue fighting. Thus they are being very pro-war without realizing it.

Treason by definition includes providing comfort an encouragement to an enemy during war.

It seems to me that the inference is that they should be charged with treason. I would think that criticising your government's actions in wartime falls so far short of treason as to be a daft thing to suggest, but Bill did say it was a mindless rant, so I assume this is just hyperbole. Hope so, anyway, otherwise it's an alarming attitude, frankly.

 

[fishbob]

I'm not sure I get this. I haven't seen your response in the Rush Limbaugh thread so I don't really know for sure your position. Are you never offended by the things people say? What does it mean to earn a privilege? This isn't a personal attack just a sincere attempt to understand.

My simple response to Bill's assertion that freedom of speech is a privelege, not a right. He is wrong, and it seems that I am in agreement with you on this subject.

 

[back2basics]

Ironically, their comments may have prolonged the war by giving our enemies motivation to continue fighting. Thus they are being very pro-war without realizing it[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

Excellent! It's the Dixie Chicks fault the war is going on so long! I love it. That’s the best one I have heard.

It's not strategy or lack of troops, it because of the words of the Dixie Chicks a pop country band.

And because they prolonged the war, they are really pro-war. Beautiful deduction and logic.

 

[Katana]

Ironically, their comments may have prolonged the war by giving our enemies motivation to continue fighting. Thus they are being very pro-war without realizing it.

Treason by definition includes providing comfort an encouragement to an enemy during war.

Do you honestly believe that OBL and his posse were energized by comments by the Dixie Chicks?

Osama bin Laden felt that 911 was a good thing because he interpreted Americans buying the Quran as proof that he was bringing Islam to the infidels. It was a very weird view. But he was looking for any reason to justify and support his and his friends’ actions. Bin Laden got it wrong. He misinterpreted what was being said and done. On the other hand having the equivalent of three cheerleaders right from the heart of Bush's homeland go to another country (apparently so they can be safe to say what they feel) and cheer Al Qaeda on, is another story.

How were they any more "safe" to make those comments elsewhere? Safe from what or whom? Looks like there were some consequences to me.

When did they cheer Al Qaeda on? Can you provide a quote or something to back up this charge?

People get used to the fact that they have the freedoms to protest and cause civil disobedience within the United States and so they are shocked when it doesn't work when they leave the United States.

When what doesn't work?

 

[bob_kark]

It seems to me that the inference is that they should be charged with treason. I would think that criticising your government's actions in wartime falls so far short of treason as to be a daft thing to suggest, but Bill did say it was a mindless rant, so I assume this is just hyperbole. Hope so, anyway, otherwise it's an alarming attitude, frankly.

I saw that, but he didn't specifically state that he believed they deserved to be charged with treason. I just want confirmation.

 

[Crossbow]

I was not motivated until I saw The Dixie Chicks on Oprah.

How would the Dixie Chicks respond to these statements?

Freedom of speech is not free. It is a privilege, not a right. It was earned. The very sort of people whom The Dixie Chicks have offended and their families earned it.

Freedom of speech does not apply during to wartime in every case. The limits to free speech helped win the war against the Japanese. Remember, "Loose lips sink ships"? Although this is not the same case, motivating and encouraging the enemy while overseas can be just as dangerous.

Ironically, their comments may have prolonged the war by giving our enemies motivation to continue fighting. Thus they are being very pro-war without realizing it.

Treason by definition includes providing comfort an encouragement to an enemy during war.

Osama bin Laden felt that 911 was a good thing because he interpreted Americans buying the Quran as proof that he was bringing Islam to the infidels. It was a very weird view. But he was looking for any reason to justify and support his and his friends’ actions. Bin Laden got it wrong. He misinterpreted what was being said and done. On the other hand having the equivalent of three cheerleaders right from the heart of Bush's homeland go to another country (apparently so they can be safe to say what they feel) and cheer Al Qaeda on, is another story.

People get used to the fact that they have the freedoms to protest and cause civil disobedience within the United States and so they are shocked when it doesn't work when they leave the United States.

Another classic example is the human shields that went to Iraq to protest and cause civil disobedience. They were going to tie themselves to buildings that happened to be near military targets. When the Marines told them that they were going to become grease for their tank threads, they were dismayed.

FDR had often said that an overall common good surpasses individual rights in wartime. And remember, he was a Democrat.

Imagine this brief fiction:

During World War II, there were a lot of people
who did not understand why the United States
was going to war with Germany when it was japan
that had attacked us.

Still, the music group, The Georgia
Girls from Warm Springs, Georgia did not go to
Europe and say to their fans "Ya'll we are really
ashamed that FDR has a vacation cottage in Georga".
If they had, clearly they would imply that they
supported Hitler and disagreed with the war
(it was all about oil, right?). And even worse,
it would suggest that perhaps Georgians
held the same beliefs.

But if The Georgia Girls had done this, I
I suppose we should support them.
Besides, they are right in saying this.
Especially since there was no
connection between Japan and German.
(Clearly there had to be a conspiracy, besides we
are in-the-know and know better, right?).

Even if what they said was wrong, it isn't
like it would hurt troop morale or undermine
the war effort, right? And gee, it probably
wouldn't lengthen the war or make it less
likely that the war would go on longer and
cause more deaths, right?
​

I suspect it has somehow become chic to protest war in the post-Vietnam era regardless of your forethought or any experiences or credentials or idea how things could be done differently.

People forget that the Vietnam war lasted decades, was our most costly war and took a much bigger toll.

Maybe The Dixie Chicks were "in the moment" and were giving a respectful nod to the music legends of the 60's.

In 1919 Judge Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said in regards to the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) that the right does not extend to the false yelling of 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater.

The Dixie Chicks did not do anything of the sort, therefore what they said about Bush (no matter if they were overseas at the time or not) is considered to be protected speech.

Therefore, please do yourself a favor and deal with it.