What Ariana thinks

[Jocko]

No it isn't. It is funamentally amoral. They could be given the order to rape children, and if it's legal and if they happen to refuse, they still get prosecuted. AND YOU'RE OK WITH THAT. So much for "casting off tyranny".

Oh, so your argument's completely valid as long as you assume it's legal to rape children in the U.S. military. Please, Tony, for the love of all that's good and holy, think a second before hitting "submit." You're causing your fellow anarchists to hang their mulleted heads in shame with doozies like this one.

This is twice you've channeled Frank Burns today.

Whatever, Klinger.

 

[Jocko]

It's wrong because she isn't conforming to the role of goose-stepper like all god-fearing, patriotic Americans should. She should also know her place as a woman. The president is a man, HOW DARE she question him.

Yeah, and the WORST thing about those goose-stepping, God-fearing, patriotic, chauvenistic bastards is that they're all bigots, too!

Silly Tony, you're probably one of those who's convinced that most of Hillary's criticism comes from the fact that she's a woman and not from the widely-held belief that she's a conniving, cynical elitist.

That said, I'm SO glad I took you off ignore. I've been missing all the fun.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, "I was following orders" is only an bogus defense if it is in the context of victor's justice?

It's not really a defense under any circumstances. If a US soldier is on trial under US law, then whether or not the soldier was following orders is somewhat irrelevant: if the order was legal, then they had a course of action to carry out those orders which was also legal. If the order was illegal, then of course following it would also be illegal, and that provides no defense. Have you not been paying attention?

In the context of victor's justice, it becomes entirely hypothetical, since we cannot know beforehand what laws such a victor might have, and various potential victors might even have contradictory laws. So we cannot use that as a basis for making judgments. As I said, it's an intractable problem. You sure as hell haven't presented a framework for dealing with it.

Then you're a moron.

Sorry, but that's how it works. If your convictions aren't important enough to face jail time for, then you have no business violating orders because of them. That's the test, that's how it works, that's how the system keeps going. And I really don't think you've thought through what it would mean to have the system work any other way, because most of the people in the military probably DON'T share a lot of your values.

No it isn't. It is funamentally amoral. They could be given the order to rape children, and if it's legal and if they happen to refuse, they still get prosecuted. AND YOU'RE OK WITH THAT. So much for "casting off tyranny".

I'm OK with the system of punishing those who disobey lawful orders. If we ever reach a point where such acts become lawful, then we've got MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS. The fact that such a thing might be lawful is the issue then, NOT the fact that those who disobey orders get thrown in jail. Duh. But if we ever become so morally depraved as to make such things lawful, then whatever system YOU imagine putting in place to keep things on an even keel is almost certainly not going to hold up either. So it's really a fake problem to begin with. But it sounds nasty, so I'm sure you've worked yourself into a positive tizzy thinking about all the horrible things my position will undoubtedly lead to.

You're no better than people who support Saddam.

You mean people like you?
Please. Grow up. That kind of petty accusation (I don't honestly believe you support Saddam) is really unworthy of this board. Your accusations don't gain weight just because they are more severe.

If he refuses to go, and if he is persecuted for it, he is then a political refugee and if he goes to jail, he is a political prisoner. You hate what this country stands for.

No, he's not a political prisoner, he's an insubordinate soldier.

Get this through your thick head: we have a volunteer military. If you are not prepared to take orders that you may disagree with, then don't sign up. If you signed up, but were unprepared to accept the obligations of service, then you will face consequences. That's the way it works. And it works both ways, too: Republican soldiers didn't get to opt out of following Clinton's orders either. That's the way you should WANT it to work, if you had any sense about you.

Take, for example, the issue of gays in the military. I'm in favor of letting them serve. If the order ever comes down from the top to change the pentagon's policy to allow this (and I suspect it will eventually happen), I expect EVERY soldier to comply. I will not accept as an excuse for harassment of or discrimination against gays in the military that soldiers are morally or politically opposed to homosexuality. They are legally obliged to follow orders, and they had damned well better do so or face the consequences. Can you honestly not see the importance of this?

This is twice you've channeled Frank Burns today.

Much as I love M.A.S.H., your inability to extend your thinking beyond Hawkeye's witticisms says a lot more about you than about me.

 

[Tony]

Nuke 'yellowcake' from Iraq found?

World Net Daily is your source? Bwahahahahahaha. That's like using a Saudi text book to prove jews eat human blood.

'Nerve gas bomb' explodes in Iraq

Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell

Mustard gas found by Iraq weapon hunters [/quote]

This doesn't support any of your assertions.

YELLOW CAKE FROM NIGER FOUND IN IRAQ

Ahh, another woo source like WND.

As for what dubya said maybe you should go back and read it again.

I'm aware of what he said, and nothing you've presented supports his assertions.

 

[Beerina]

They could be given the order to rape children, and if it's legal and if they happen to refuse, they still get prosecuted. AND YOU'RE OK WITH THAT. So much for "casting off tyranny".

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as a "straw man" argument. :rollseyes

I doubt I have ever seen a clearer, textbook example.

 

[Tony]

It's not really a defense under any circumstances. If a US soldier is on trial under US law, then whether or not the soldier was following orders is somewhat irrelevant: if the order was legal, then they had a course of action to carry out those orders which was also legal. If the order was illegal, then of course following it would also be illegal, and that provides no defense. Have you not been paying attention?

I understand what you're saying, and I understand that's how it is. But it's BS. If a soldier is given a legal order to shoot a civilian in Atlanta, his act was legal. He will never go to trial in America because his act was legal. If he refuses to murder the civilian, he goes to jail. You're ok with that. I however, am not.

Sorry, but that's how it works. If your convictions aren't important enough to face jail time for, then you have no business violating orders because of them.

This makes no sense. Someone has to go to jail to really have convictions?

because most of the people in the military probably DON'T share a lot of your values.

And I'm suppose to care what a bunch of indoctrinated robots think because....?

I'm OK with the system of punishing those who disobey lawful orders. If we ever reach a point where such acts become lawful, then we've got MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS.

It's not to the extreme that I described, but we're there already.

The fact that such a thing might be lawful is the issue then, NOT the fact that those who disobey orders get thrown in jail.

I've noticed alot of things are either/or with you.

So it's really a fake problem to begin with. But it sounds nasty, so I'm sure you've worked yourself into a positive tizzy thinking about all the horrible things my position will undoubtedly lead to.

Earlier you said I didn't think it through, now you're saying I have. Make up your mind.

No, he's not a political prisoner, he's an insubordinate soldier.

Another one of those either/or things.

Get this through your thick head: we have a volunteer military. If you are not prepared to take orders that you may disagree with, then don't sign up. If you signed up, but were unprepared to accept the obligations of service, then you will face consequences. That's the way it works.

Like I said, so much for "casting off tyranny". Just because it's a volunteer military doesn't mean the people who sign-up become chattle.

And it works both ways, too: Republican soldiers didn't get to opt out of following Clinton's orders either. That's the way you should WANT it to work, if you had any sense about you.

Why? If they didn't want to follow his orders they could just be allowed to leave the military. I see no reason why allowing soldiers to do that is a bad thing. It's called freedom.

Take, for example, the issue of gays in the military. I'm in favor of letting them serve. If the order ever comes down from the top to change the pentagon's policy to allow this (and I suspect it will eventually happen), I expect EVERY soldier to comply. I will not accept as an excuse for harassment of or discrimination against gays in the military that soldiers are morally or politically opposed to homosexuality.

Neither will I. But if they opt to leave the military because of the gays, I will accept that.

They are legally obliged to follow orders, and they had damned well better do so or face the consequences. Can you honestly not see the importance of this?

I can see it yes, but I reject it because I reject authoritarianism.

Much as I love M.A.S.H., your inability to extend your thinking beyond Hawkeye's witticisms says a lot more about you than about me.

Whatever you do, please don't confiscate my still (ferret face).

I'll make you a deal, I'll extend beyong Hawkeye's witticisms if you extend beyond Burns' military worship.

 

[Tony]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as a "straw man" argument. :rollseyes

You obviously haven't read the whole exchange then. It is merely Zigg's position taken to its logical conclusion. If you keep reading, you'll see that Zigg made a damn good rebuttal to it.

 

[Ziggurat]

World Net Daily is your source? Bwahahahahahaha. That's like using a Saudi text book to prove jews eat human blood.

A simple google search would have revealed that World Net Daily wasn't the only source for this story:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-16-netherlands_x.htm

But let's not deal with the content of the story. Let's just try to keep shooting the messenger. Can't let facts get in the way, can we?

 

[Dan Beaird]

But the fact that her son is dead is the story isn’t it?

Well sort of. I read it more as her son is dead and she wants to place personal blame on dubya. The result of that approach is to disarm opposition to the position by virtue of the "you have no right to talk if you haven't lost a son" gambit. In fairness I have heard this more from her supporters than from her.

Sheehan is PO’ed because her son died in what she believes is a pointless war. If she protests against the war, and someone asks her why she is against the war, what is she supposed to say? “I’m sorry, but it would be impolite for me to talk about it?” Your argument seems to be that she is using the death of her son to rally support against the war. What else should she be doing?

That's not quite my argument Random. My argument goes more along the lines that she (and her supporters) use the death of her son to trump any opposition to their position. Certainly you can be against the war because you lost a loved one. You could be for the war for the same reason, the fact alone is not a rational basis for decision, it is emotional. You can be for or against the war for any number of reasons, but you cannot use an appeal to emotion to counter reasoned argument.

 

[Tony]

A simple google search would have revealed that World Net Daily wasn't the only source for this story:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-16-netherlands_x.htm

Got it. Small amout found in Rotterdam=Iraq has nuke, bio, and chem weapons. Excuse me if I'm not impressed.

Can't let facts get in the way, can we?

Indeed. It's you guys who are under the delusion that a small amout of yellow cake from a mine bombed in '91 found thousands of miles from Iraq supports the presidents claims.

 

[Ziggurat]

I understand what you're saying, and I understand that's how it is. But it's BS. If a soldier is given a legal order to shoot a civilian in Atlanta, his act was legal. He will never go to trial in America because his act was legal. If he refuses to murder the civilian, he goes to jail. You're ok with that. I however, am not.

No, I'm not OK with it. But what I'm not OK with is it BEING legal for the military to shoot a civilian in Atlanta. If I was following YOUR standard of logic, I'd accuse you of saying that it's OK for it to be legal to shoot civilians. But that would be a misrepresentation of your beliefs, wouldn't it? You're not making any headway with these hypothetical attrocities, so why do you keep bothering?

This makes no sense. Someone has to go to jail to really have convictions?

If you're not willing to go to jail, you don't have convictions. That's not the same thing as actually going to jail: if your orders never conflict with your convictions (generally the case), then there's never a problem.

Civil disobedience is the same: if you believe strongly enough that a law is a great injustice, then you should be willing to break the law and face the consequences. There's no fundamental difference here between my position on the military and some of the great civil rights thinkers. But of course, you're blind to the parallels because you refuse to even understand my position.

And I'm suppose to care what a bunch of indoctrinated robots think because....?

Because that's who we're talking about. Jeesh. Have a little consistency, man. One moment, you're trying to argue that soliders should be allowed to refuse whatever ordersl they wish, the next moment you're saying you don't care about what they think. Well, which is it?

Earlier you said I didn't think it through, now you're saying I have. Make up your mind.

There's no contradiction. You clearly think ABOUT things, which is what I said here. In fact, you seem to obsess on certain things. But running around in circles inside your own head, while it qualifies as thinking about something, doesn't count as thinking things THROUGH. You don't figure out the implications and consequences of your own ideas. THAT would be thinking things through. THAT is what you are failing to do.

Why? If they didn't want to follow his orders they could just be allowed to leave the military. I see no reason why allowing soldiers to do that is a bad thing. It's called freedom.

Of course you don't see the problem. As I said, you don't think things through.

Being in the military is a risky job. That's the whole bloody point: those people are accepting risk in order to protect the rest of us. But it only works if you hold them to that promise. If people can bail out of the military whenever they please, then you'll get a lot of people signing up for the benefits, and as soon as they might have to actually face danger, they'll just "object" to whatever is convenient in order to avoid that danger. Such people would be an unacceptable drain on the system: if such behavior is permissible, then we cannot ever know what amount of force we truly have at our disposal. That's a very bad thing, to be uncertain of your own strength. We weed out such people by demanding a fixed period of service.

You want to be able to excercise more freedom than that? Then DON'T SIGN UP! It's really that simple.

Neither will I. But if they opt to leave the military because of the gays, I will accept that.

I wouldn't. Not until their term is up, at which time they can refuse to reenlist, but until then, they follow orders. That's the deal, and they know it.

I'll make you a deal, I'll extend beyong Hawkeye's witticisms if you extend beyond Burns' military worship.

It's not military worship that underpins my position. Quite the reverse: it's the idea that the military is a SERVANT, and not the master, that I believe in. That you would call demanding subserviance FROM the military counts as worship shows you really don't understand my position at all.

 

[Dan Beaird]

World Net Daily is your source? Bwahahahahahaha. That's like using a Saudi text book to prove jews eat human blood.

Sorry you don't like the plates your crow is being served on:

IAEA confirms yellowcake found in Rotterdam likely from Iraq

...This doesn't support any of your assertions.

On the contrary it supports my assertions just fine. The No WMD's meme is not in accord with the raw facts. Iraq had WMD's, Iraq had the capability to develop more WMD's (They were sitting on something like 500 tons of yellowcake along with the facilities to refine it into weapons grade materials). Now if you want to contend that there were no WMD's why don't you provide evidence that no WMD's = some WMD's.

Ahh, another woo source like WND.

It's a joke son. Sheesh...do I have to explain everything?

I'm aware of what he said, and nothing you've presented supports his assertions.

Your memory is bad...

...Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them. He's a man who a while ago who was close to having a nuclear weapon. Imagine if this madman had a nuclear weapon. It's a man who not only has chemical weapons, but he's used chemical weapons against some of his neighbors. He used chemical weapons, incredibly enough, against his own people. He can't stand America. He can't stand some of our closest friends....

And my message to Saddam Hussein is that, for the sake of peace, for the sake of freedom, you must disarm like you said you would do. But my message to you all and to the country is this: for the sake of our future freedoms, and for the sake of world peace, if the United Nations can't act, and if Saddam Hussein won't act, the United States will lead a coalition of nations to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech

I'm sure that's just as ridiculous a source as WND, but I'm afraid you have to accept this one.

 

[Random]

Well sort of. I read it more as her son is dead and she wants to place personal blame on dubya. The result of that approach is to disarm opposition to the position by virtue of the "you have no right to talk if you haven't lost a son" gambit. In fairness I have heard this more from her supporters than from her.

That's not quite my argument Random. My argument goes more along the lines that she (and her supporters) use the death of her son to trump any opposition to their position. Certainly you can be against the war because you lost a loved one. You could be for the war for the same reason, the fact alone is not a rational basis for decision, it is emotional. You can be for or against the war for any number of reasons, but you cannot use an appeal to emotion to counter reasoned argument.

I kind of see your point, but it seems to me that you are pretty much saying that she can’t complain about the war. Her reasons for protesting the war are not based entirely on reason, and they never will be. Her question is “Why did my son have to die?” not “Will Iraqi oil revenues pay for the cost of the occupation?” If she can’t speak about her son, her main objection to the war is taken off the table. You are basically saying she can’t mention her dead son when protesting the war because it is too effective.

Let’s face facts, if your kid goes off and joins the armed forces and gets killed in some foreign country, you would want to know that he died for a good cause. The “Is it worth my children risking their lives” standard is a pretty good one when it comes to going to war. Sheehan has decided that the answer to the question is “no”.

 

[Dan Beaird]

I understand what you're saying, and I understand that's how it is. But it's BS. If a soldier is given a legal order to shoot a civilian in Atlanta, his act was legal. He will never go to trial in America because his act was legal. If he refuses to murder the civilian, he goes to jail. You're ok with that. I however, am not.

If the order is legal, then the action of obeying it is also legal. It can only be a legal order if the circumstances were such that killing the civilian were permissable. Essentially this becomes the same reasons as a policeman might have for killing a citizen. Self defense, stopping a violent felony, preventing escape of a felon, that sort of thing and including some special circumstances which might occur in case of martial law.

Killing someone legally is not murder. Sheesh, I just had this discussion with another Texan...you aren't related to KoA are you?

This makes no sense. Someone has to go to jail to really have convictions?

Nope, but if your convictions run counter to the demands of the law of the land it should be an expected result of following your convictions.

And I'm suppose to care what a bunch of indoctrinated robots think because....?

Our indoctrination was better than yours of course.

It's not to the extreme that I described, but we're there already.

Okay....we aren't at the extreme where soldiers are arrested for failing to murder American civilians when ordered, but we are at the same place....what the hell does this mean? It must mean that soldiers are routinely given timeouts in the corner for failing to give wedgies to American citizens when ordered....is that it?

Care to tell me how we are at this ridiculous spot you describe while at the same time not being there? The orders that run the American military were not re-written when dubya stepped into office.

I've noticed alot of things are either/or with you.

Mr. Pot, I have some disturbing news for you...

Earlier you said I didn't think it through, now you're saying I have. Make up your mind.

I think Sesame Street does a show explaining the difference between earlier and later. It's also sponsored by the number four and the Really Young Republicans.

Another one of those either/or things.

So which is it? It's either either, or it's or. Pick one dammit.

Like I said, so much for "casting off tyranny". Just because it's a volunteer military doesn't mean the people who sign-up become chattle.

Chattle is not the correct word, but they do become subject to an entirely different set of laws and rules than civilians. Soldiers do not have the same civil rights as civilians, it sort of comes with the demands of military discipline which is part of that provide for the common defense thingy in the Constitution.

Why? If they didn't want to follow his orders they could just be allowed to leave the military. I see no reason why allowing soldiers to do that is a bad thing. It's called freedom.

Oh great. We'll have an army that gets to individually choose whether it fights or not when the commanders order them to go. Does something about that strike you as particularly assinine?

"Right men! We have to take that hill! Well actually, you have to take that hill, because I'm not going, and neither is anyone else who doesn't want to go. So all you who want to go raise your hands....anyone? Anyone at all? Jones, call the Captain and tell him we said no."

I can see it yes, but I reject it because I reject authoritarianism.

Mind giving an example of any military force that isn't authoritarian by nature?

 

[Jocko]

Why? If they didn't want to follow his orders they could just be allowed to leave the military. I see no reason why allowing soldiers to do that is a bad thing. It's called freedom.

And here we have Tony's entire MO encapsulated in one simple statement.

Drunk on freedom, and allergic to responsibility.

 

[Tony]

No, I'm not OK with it.

So then they can refuse some orders?

But what I'm not OK with is it BEING legal for the military to shoot a civilian in Atlanta.

Not yet atleast...

If you're not willing to go to jail, you don't have convictions.

That's a non sequitur.

Civil disobedience is the same: if you believe strongly enough that a law is a great injustice, then you should be willing to break the law and face the consequences.

Jail isn't a consequence of breaking the law, it's a consequence of getting caught. The consequence of breaking the law is persecution.

But of course, you're blind to the parallels because you refuse to even understand my position.

I understand your position perfectly well. Soldiers shouldn't have the right to disobey orders they disagree with.

One moment, you're trying to argue that soliders should be allowed to refuse whatever ordersl they wish, the next moment you're saying you don't care about what they think. Well, which is it?

It's both actually.

You don't figure out the implications and consequences of your own ideas. THAT would be thinking things through. THAT is what you are failing to do.

Then we're making the same mistake.

Of course you don't see the problem. As I said, you don't think things through.

Then tell me, as you see it, what's the problem?

That's the whole bloody point: those people are accepting risk in order to protect the rest of us. But it only works if you hold them to that promise.

That's not a promise I hold them to, in fact, I have no illusions that the military is there to protect us. The military is there to enforce government policy whatever it is.

If people can bail out of the military whenever they please, then you'll get a lot of people signing up for the benefits, and as soon as they might have to actually face danger, they'll just "object" to whatever is convenient in order to avoid that danger.

I don't have a problem with that. That just means the government will have a much harder job of convincing the American people that whatever they have in mind is worth the sacrifice.

Such people would be an unacceptable drain on the system:

So? We put up with the drain the current military inflicts on the system.

if such behavior is permissible, then we cannot ever know what amount of force we truly have at our disposal. That's a very bad thing, to be uncertain of your own strength.

Not really, it just means politicians can't bully around weaker countries. They'll actually have to *gasp* use diplomatic skills.

It's not military worship that underpins my position. Quite the reverse: it's the idea that the military is a SERVANT, and not the master, that I believe in. That you would call demanding subserviance FROM the military counts as worship shows you really don't understand my position at all.

Thanks, but no thanks. That kind of subservience must first come from government before it comes from the military. In fact, you can't have military subservience without first having government subservience.

 

[Dan Beaird]

I kind of see your point, but it seems to me that you are pretty much saying that she can’t complain about the war. Her reasons for protesting the war are not based entirely on reason, and they never will be. Her question is “Why did my son have to die?” not “Will Iraqi oil revenues pay for the cost of the occupation?” If she can’t speak about her son, her main objection to the war is taken off the table. You are basically saying she can’t mention her dead son when protesting the war because it is too effective.

Let’s face facts, if your kid goes off and joins the armed forces and gets killed in some foreign country, you would want to know that he died for a good cause. The “Is it worth my children risking their lives” standard is a pretty good one when it comes to going to war. Sheehan has decided that the answer to the question is “no”.

I can pretty easily agree with everything you say here. What I don't agree with and the part I think is reprehensible is using the death of the child as a means of quashing debate on the topic. That the war kills people is a very very strong argument against the war, in fact so strong that anyone for the war must be able to present some reasoning that accounts for that loss of life and show that the results may be worth the price paid. However you cannot reject the arguments in opposition by saying that the people expressing them are unqualified to express an opinion because they have not lost a family member.

If we were going to follow that route then I think we'd be best off letting only the people who have died express an opinion.

 

[SezMe]

I'm going to post the FULL paragraph of your post that I questioned you about.

First off, I believe that Sheehan is handled by an expert team of spindoctors who have her speaking only the things already outlined in the propoganda playbook. While maybe she agrees with the things she says, they are no more her opinions than the opinions of Hamlet were those of Laurence Olivier. She is part of a well orchestrated attack on the administration by a special interest group who leverage the death of her son as a means of stifling honest debate on the topic. She is not only letting these people use her, which is bad enough, she is letting them use her dead son which is despicable. Her actions are neither courageous nor principled in my opinion, but merely the actions of a money-grubbing, publicity whore who obviously thinks much less of her son and his memory than anything we could possibly accuse of dubya.

You did, in fact, begin ("First off") by stating an opinion. Fine, no problem. We all have opinions. You then make some factual statements using the word "is" and finally end your paragraph with another opinion. But let's not quibble about english and take, for the sake of the discussion, that the whole paragraph is an opinion piece.

But generally one has facts that are a basis for one's opinions. More specifically, here on a skeptic forum, one is expected to have at least some basis for an opinion. For example, when Christian Dude expresses his opinions about ID, we are all over him like white on rice for him to back them up. I merely asked that you meet the same standard that.

What was your response?

As for evidence that Sheehan is manipulated? Well how about blogging with Michael Moore, staying in the Crawford Peace House and having better road support than the Pope and the Rolling Stones combined (including geriatric medical equipment).

THIS is evidence? I'll not comment but let others judge for themselves whether you provided sufficient evidence to even begin to justify your opinion.

Then you said to me:

You didn't read my post either did you? I said that this is what I believe to be true. It fits the observations I've made.[/b]

But your "observations" don't support your opinion. For example, blogging with Moore is evidence of "well orchestrated attack on the administration by a special interest group" (your exact words)?

Then you really hit paydirt.

If she has a valid position she should be able to support it without an appeal to emotion. Lawzy, you could pick up that much logic from comic books, do I really have to explain it?

You want Sheehan to support her position without appeal to emotion while you won't support your position at all.

Nice, Dan. Very well done. Please provide a list of the comic books you subscribe to so I can pick up some rudiments of logic.

Now, here is another instance of logic in response to how she "money-grubbing"

How could she not be? You don't think the lady has book deals and appearance fees? This is another inference which I feel comfortable making based on the simple fact that I am not an idiot.

"How could she not be?" is evidence for your assertion? Wow! I've made my judgement about your idiocy but I'll not taint others with my private view.


Why is at all important? Because you did not make a statement about your belief on whether it was going to rain tomorrow. Or whether the Phillies will win the world series. No, you made highly charged, scurrilous statements about a person and about those who support her.

Unfortunately, that is what much of ideologic rhetoric has come to in political America. It damages the political process, it stains those who simply want to express their opinions and it scuttles attempts at problem solving and moderation.

One might expect some of that out in the coarse arena of everyday politics. When it happens in a forum where ciritical thinking is supposed to be the common denominator it is disgusting.

And, finally, when you respond, remember your promise:

I'll make sure to write in smaller words just for you.

 

[Tony]

Sorry you don't like the plates your crow is being served on:

IAEA confirms yellowcake found in Rotterdam likely from Iraq
[/B]

I've already addressed this.

On the contrary it supports my assertions just fine. The No WMD's meme is not in accord with the raw facts.

Yes it is, the amount of WMD's that have been found do not satisfy the president's or Colon Powell's claims. Are you now claiming the the CIA intellegence was right all along?

It's a joke son. Sheesh...do I have to explain everything

Sorry, there was no sign of levity when you posted it. But it is funny.

Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech

You do realize that Bush talked about WMD's in more than one speech, right? And you do realize that not just Bush talked up the WMD's right?

 

[Random]

I can pretty easily agree with everything you say here. What I don't agree with and the part I think is reprehensible is using the death of the child as a means of quashing debate on the topic. That the war kills people is a very very strong argument against the war, in fact so strong that anyone for the war must be able to present some reasoning that accounts for that loss of life and show that the results may be worth the price paid. However you cannot reject the arguments in opposition by saying that the people expressing them are unqualified to express an opinion because they have not lost a family member.

Has Sheehan said this? I’m not sure if she has said it or not, and you would have a legitimate point if she did. Whether her supporters have said this or not doesn’t really reflect on Sheehan directly unless she is encouraging that argument. Sheehan has a lot of supporters, and whenever you get a large number of people around, you can always expect a few people to be a bit batty. You wouldn’t want to hold W responsible for every statement made on Little Green Footballs.

If we were going to follow that route then I think we'd be best off letting only the people who have died express an opinion.

I for one would love to see the Iraqi war dead rise from the grave and engage in a rational debate about the merits of W’s invasion, but that probably isn’t going to happen.