My Dixie Chicks Mindless Rant

[geni]

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.

Generaly a stratergy of containment would not have resulted in the largest rearming in british history. The evidence we have suggests that sadam was contianed.

The geopolitical situation leading up to WW2 bares no relation to GW2 thus it is of little use.

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.

I think you mean WW1. Germany was starveing and the leadship had fallen. Not comparible to Iraq after GW1 where sadam was still in power.

There can be found as many simularities with World War II and today just as there can be found differences.

Evidences?

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.

I'm suggesting that think in WW2 terms is worse than useless.

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

Contibuing clintion's policy would appear to be logical.

Or we ah ha learn from the past.

In 1920 Iraq became a League of Nations mandate under british control. Various parts or Iraq rebelled. Britian won with little more than a tenth of the current force in Iraq. I tend to feel that that conflict would be of more interest than WW2 in looking at Iraq.

Other conflicts of interest would be the war between Russia and Chechnya. Israel's occupation of lebanon. The soviet invasion of afganistan. The algerian civil war and perhaps the indian mutiny.

WW2 only has fractionaly more relivance than say waterloo (and that is only because the RGP7 has it's roots in WW2).

 

[Tony]

Man, it's a matter of respect and honor for the country of your citizenship. Period.

No it's not. Refraining from criticizing the president has absolutely nothing to do with respecting or honoring your country.

reread my posts. Reading is fundamental.

Which post(s) did you address that question? Don't worry about re-postng it, just give me the number.

I have to ask... Have you ever served in the military?

No. Why does it matter?

 

[Axenos]

I realize that. My question is, what difference is the point of origin if they're being "disrespectful" in front of a world audience?

Good question. To me, as I try to put this into words, the answer is symbolism. Look at it from that point of view together with what I have said so far and see if that helps clarify where I am coming from.

 

[Tony]

To be fair, you can think Fred Phelps' protests at funerals are despicable but still support free speech.

True, but Phelps is so far to the extreme that he is like neo-nazis, and muslim fundies. The only people who don't find their speech tastless, regardless of where it's being uttered, are those with whom they already agree. I think you'll agree that Phelp's speech and the Dixie Chicks' speech are completely different. But your point is a good one.

 

[Tony]

Good question. To me, as I try to put this into words, the answer is symbolism.

That's what I thought. Symbolism over substance.


Enough said.

 

[Axenos]

No it's not. Refraining from criticizing the president has absolutely nothing to do with respecting or honoring your country.

Post 57. It's my opinion.

Which post(s) did you address that question. Don't worry about re-postng it, just give me the number..

Sweet Monkeys! Post 57 again.

No. Why does it matter?

This is why:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I don't care about Republican, Democrat, Independent, and whatever party you wish to fill in. The politics don't matter. It's THE RESPECT for your country that matters. I don't agree with or even like the President sometimes, no matter what party or who it is. But any President of the United States is MY President and deserving of respect when some over-rated country band is disrespecting him on foreign soil.

 

[Axenos]

That's what I thought. Symbolism over substance.


Enough said.

Post 106 should cover this nicely.

 

[bob_kark]

Good question. To me, as I try to put this into words, the answer is symbolism. Look at it from that point of view together with what I have said so far and see if that helps clarify where I am coming from.

I believe I understand your POV. However, let me give you back your analogy. Let's assume that you go to your neighbor's house and record a Youtube video listing all the reasons why your wife is a worthless %#$*%&. Wouldn't you think it would be a little bit funny if your wife became upset with you not for the things you said, but because you didn't record the video at home?

 

[Axenos]

I believe I understand your POV. However, let me give you back your analogy. Let's assume that you go to your neighbor's house and record a Youtube video listing all the reasons why your wife is a worthless %#$*%&. Wouldn't you think it would be a little bit funny if your wife became upset with you not for the things you said, but because you didn't record the video at home?

Interesting question and I see your POV as well. However, either way, divorce is in the air.

Seriously, I would think that one of the first things she would say would be "You lousy coward... you couldn't say these things to my face right here at home?"

Analogy Wars... right here at JREF.

 

[Tony]

Post 57. It's my opinion.

Ok, and you've done nothing to support that opinion. Why is it ok to criticize the president in the US, but not in Britain?

This is why:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

How is this relevant?

I don't care about Republican, Democrat, Independent, and whatever party you wish to fill in. The politics don't matter. It's THE RESPECT for your country that matters.

You keep saying that, but you're not supporting it. How does it follow that not criticizing the president conveys respect for one's country?

I don't agree with or even like the President sometimes, no matter what party or who it is. But any President of the United States is MY President and deserving of respect when some over-rated country band is disrespecting him on foreign soil.

Why does he deserve respect? Why does it matter what soil they're on? I submit that it's unamerican to blindly respect a man for the fact that he is the president.

 

[Tony]

Post 106 should cover this nicely.

If by "covers" you mean "affirms", than yes it does.

 

[Axenos]

Why does he deserve respect? Why does it matter what soil their on? I submit that it's unamerican to blindly respect a man for the fact that he is the president.

Unfortunately, it seems you'll never know. You seem to be very close-minded and uninformed, and I find that sad.

And to me, the most American act I can think of is to serve your country in the Armed Forces as I have done and you have not, so to call me unamerican is ridiculous and pathetic.

I grow weary of debating with you because it seems that I am just banging my head against a brick wall of ignorance and stupidity, so I'll leave you to your devices.

Best of luck.

 

[bob_kark]

Interesting question and I see your POV as well. However, either way, divorce is in the air.

Seriously, I would think that one of the first things she would say would be "You lousy coward... you couldn't say these things to my face right here at home?"

Analogy Wars... right here at JREF.

Well, I would've paid money to see them say it to Bush's face!

 

[Axenos]

I'm with you on that. And I would have had a great deal more respect for them had they done just that... as long as they did it here.

 

[bob_kark]

I'm with you on that. And I would have had a great deal more respect for them had they done just that... as long as they did it here.

Yeah, I get the feeling Bush wouldn't allow them the opportunity.

 

[Katana]

Yeah, I get the feeling Bush wouldn't allow them the opportunity.

Not in a million years.

 

[Tony]

Unfortunately, it seems you'll never know. You seem to be very close-minded and uninformed, and I find that sad.

And to me, the most American act I can think of is to serve your country in the Armed Forces as I have done and you have not, so to call me unamerican is ridiculous and pathetic.

I grow weary of debating with you because it seems that I am just banging my head against a brick wall of ignorance and stupidity, so I'll leave you to your devices.

Best of luck.

In otherwords, you can't support your opinion and you're going to toss around a bunch of ad homs in a fit of frustration and hope no-one notices. Well, we do.

 

[Axenos]

In otherwords, you can't support your opinion and you're going to toss around a bunch of ad homs in a fit of frustration and hope no-one notices. Well, we do.

Okey-dokey there, good buddy.

 

[Sally]

I treat this issue like this:

Dixie Chicks at a London concert: "I am ashamed our president is from Texas" (or something close to that)

Kayne West on National TV during a Katrina relief fundraiser: "George Bush doesn't care about black people"

Kayne had more balls in giving his statement.

Dixie Chicks made theirs' on foreign soil to a crowd friendly to such statements. Than on return made a somewhat apology on the statement. At that point I wrote the chicks off as just working the different audiences but in the following months they did stand together and work through the strong backlash.

When ready to return to the scene they stood solidly behind their right to make the statement and took the risk in losing the country audience (which they mostly did). That is where I gained respect for them; they looked their old fan base in the eyes and stood their ground.

Edit:

Forgot My final point.

In the long run I say the chicks showed more balls than Kayne ever did. They spoke out on foreign soil to a friendly crowd but came back and faced an angry fanbase and ended up standing their ground. Kayne never faced losing his fan base even though he made a statement right here on american soil in fact he probably gained fans

 

[Tony]

Okey-dokey there, good buddy.

Huh? I thought you were ending our discussion. I guess you were lying when you said:

I'll leave you to your devices.

If you mean that, continue to run away with your tail between your legs.