Your original post was “calling out” a single poster rather than putting up a question/statement for the whole board. Conversations or questions for a single poster are generally best handled by PM.
Calling the Flounder thread “[color=darkred]say it in a pm[/color]” was, in part, me “having the grace to let you know why” it got floundered.
The more important reason for why I named the Flounder thread what I did was to provide an example to other posters. I was actually quite confident that you (knowing that you are a very sharp guy) would, in truth, not be in the least bit confused as to why it got floundered – as indeed you clearly were not, since you instantly posted a 2nd attempt that completely fixed the problem .
In general please try and remember to post feedback in the feedback forum.
Why should I? I will assume this is directed to me. First, you are not American, therefore, shall we say that you have no right to express any opinion about American foreign policy? I would be open to raising the bar on my expressing opinons about the war in Iraq if all others are willing to raise the bar equally regarding their opinions.
Second, I would not be eligible to fight in combat, but I might be eligible to serve in an admistrative position in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq and would do so if selected. Would I go out of my way to get such a position, probably not, but I would if assigned. Are you suggesting that Iraq and Afghanistan are dangerous only to soldiers and combat personnel?
Considering that those who advocated doing nothing about Iraq were complicit in the deaths of millions just as those who do nothing about Darfur and other such tragedies are equally complicit, what do you think should be done with these people? Also, given that those who advocated against action in Afghanistan and Iraq might be responsible for far greater deaths in the future if the problems had not been nipped in the bud now, how do you suggest we punish them?
Enlighten is the key word here. I believe that I have gone some way to enlightening you, but I doubt very much that you will accept the positions I have outlined above. This is why despite your claims to be a Tory, your mindset makes you most suitable for continued allegiance to “leftist” causes. What was the old joke about leftists? Being a leftie means never having to say you’re sorry?
Also, I would strongly suggest that any peace protesters be sent to future invasion sites or even to present day Iraq to protect those lives that they claim to care about. Surely, that would represent the moral equivalent of calling for those who support war to actually sign up? If not, what morally would be the difference. Sorry but you have painted yourself into a morally untenable position. It’s either all the way or none of the way but you cannot selectively choose which side has to meet which goals while failing to apply the same standards to the opposing side. If you can, please explain to me how this would be done. I am all ears (or eyes).
Fred, it was not aimed exclusively at you, but all who pontificate about the need to engage in military action but do not stand up to be counted when it comes to enlisting. My not being american has nothing to do with in any shape or form, the actions principally of the US have directly involved my country - albeit as an ally - which has also taken casualties, therefore i can and will comment.
Fred, i think i know you well enough to say that you would not lie on this point over being eligible or not, and accordingly will not take issue on it. What i do find interesting though is that by your own admission you would probably not volunteer even for a admin role, and no i am not suggesting that they are not dangerous, but even you must admit that the level of danger is significantly reduced compared to front line duty, and in some cases probably borders on negligible risk.
Which by your own admissions previously, you were one of these prior to 9/11, so you now stand double counted.
[quote=“fred smith”]Enlighten is the key word here. I believe that I have gone some way to enlightening you, but I doubt very much that you will accept the positions I have outlined above. This is why despite your claims to be a Tory, your mindset makes you most suitable for continued allegiance to “leftist” causes. What was the old joke about leftists? Being a leftie means never having to say you’re sorry?
Also, I would strongly suggest that any peace protesters be sent to future invasion sites or even to present day Iraq to protect those lives that they claim to care about. Surely, that would represent the moral equivalent of calling for those who support war to actually sign up? If not, what morally would be the difference. Sorry but you have painted yourself into a morally untenable position. It’s either all the way or none of the way but you cannot selectively choose which side has to meet which goals while failing to apply the same standards to the opposing side. If you can, please explain to me how this would be done. I am all ears (or eyes).[/quote]
In some ways i would agree with you, though i do not agree that they are the moral equivalent of each other. There are times when the peace protestors need to see more of what their actions cause.
BTW, my being a tory, does not mean that i have to agree 100% with everything the tory party does or does not do, just as i would expect any steadfast Republican to do the same. It does not mean blind acceptance of everything the party leadership does.
Fred, the main difference between us, is not the result that is being aimed for, but the means to achieve it, i would have thought by now that you had learnt that.
You sure you do not want to rethink that? If I remember right, you are not Afghan. You sure you do want to give up ‘the right’ to express what you think about them harboring terrorists or how they ran their country prior to the invasion? Even if you were to give it up, are you really convinced that would be a good thing?
I’d agree they were complicit … IF they were responsible for the wellbeing of the Iraqis. Sounds maybe like nit-picking, but from law classes I still remember action can get punished directly, but inaction only if you resposible for the wellbeing of the victim and fail to live up to that responsibility. The reason was that otherwise the duties of the individual would grow out of hand.
A point can be made of course that those who advocate against the war often very vocally also claim they care a whole lot about the ‘poor downtrodden countries of the world’ and act as if they were some ‘kind benefactor’ taking up the responsibility to better the lot of … let’s say the Iraqis in our case. Acting like that can perhaps make them complicit to sumthing when not backing up thair assumed ‘benefactor’ role with action when need be.
However, demanding action from anyone (even from the heart-bleeding crowd) just for action’s sake sounds very thin as an argument. No need to go into detail which would have been better in the case of Iraq - action or inaction - here though, as there are a lot more other threads about that already.
What I am curious about however - what if someone is not claiming the moral high ground by acting all heart-bleeding and instead openly admits he does not care how others ruin their own lives, societies and cultures. Someone who says “Well, if the only reason to go to Iraq was to help them get rid of Saddam, then I’d preferred we’d stayed out of it. Threat of WMDs against us would have been a good reason, threat of terrorism against us from Iraq would have been an okay reason, well even just securing business or oil is maybe not very shiney but at least in our interest … but just tidying up their own land for them? Why?” How to deal with such an attitude?
It sounds like a pretty cold-blooded stance … but it is at least devoid of any moral grand-standing, which in my view usually has its roots more in vanity than any real compassion. It probably upsets the left cause it cites only self-interests as viable excuses. It probably also upsets the right cause it does not accept one of the (now) main reasons for the whole endeavour - compassion and to better the lot of the Iraqis - as viable reasons.
Try to read the whole thread before expressing an opinion. My point was that those who suggest that people who support wars must either fight themselves or shut up would be akin to those who are not Afghan not being able to have an opinion about Afghanistan OR the example that I used which is that those who are not American cannot have an opinion about the US.
Had you read the thread from its beginning, you would have seen that my position was made in relation to the statement made previously. If you do not take that into context, then my point that saying anyone who is not of a certain country has no right to have any opinion about that country loses its ironic value.
In this context, would you see yourself more as a “Marshall Applewhite” or more of a “Shoko Asahara” kind of person? Or do you see yourself as the guy with the pistol in the bunker when everything goes to heck in a handbasket?
I guess I will go with being the guy in the bunker with a pistol when everything goes to hell in a handbasket. Thanks for sharing, er that is thanks for playing. Bye bye now. Denial ain’t a river in Egypt.
I think anybody willing to propose loony adventures that result in people dying should be willing to put their own life on the line for said adventure.
Marshall Applewhite was complete nutter, but even he had the strength of character to accompany his followers on their fatal attempt to join with the Hale-Bopp comet. As he and quite a few of his followers had already castrated themselves, I think it is fair to say that it wasn’t even a particularly “ballsy” move.
So, why not sign up now that the age limits have been raised? Don’t you find it a bit creepy that you’ve been so eager to send other Americans into war while evincing a complete lack of willingness to do the same?