To the extent that you no longer believe *any* evidence that has been presented? Even pre-Bush administration evidence? No. If you disbelieve all evidence - which you apparently do - then that is just stupid. Childish and stupid. Dismissal of conspiracy theorists? Sure. Dismissal of principled moralists? Sure, but not with contempt. Dismissal of those wh refuse to believe any argument or evidence? Most definitely. Easily. Curiously, someone who can be blamed for bringing on the current war via a 12-year old mistake. Curiously, the man who is personally responsible for that 12-year old mistake. A man who is apparently against all military action, no matter the cause or justification. Oh, and he got a Nobel Peace Prize out of his opposition - something he has been trying to get all political his life. Who conveniently do not have names... Who is apparently this nation's new premier national security expert, since he is the most trusted man in America. I thought we already established that? They are marginalized for reasons other than what was stated in this board (except for Cronkite, that is). Two of them would have to admit that they made a huge mistake during their reigns in order to admit that they were wrong - something politicians and generals love doing, admitting that they were wrong. One has gained the prize he has sought for over 30 years of political life by vocally opposing the sitting president (and breaking long-standing tradition to do so). Several others are unnamed, but are really important people (evidently more important than other important people who support ousting Saddam), and the last is a liberal commentator and observer who has consistently been opposed to war throughout his career. But of course, he is now the nation's premier national security expert, so I guess his opinions cannot be discounted so easily... And it's a shame that you are incapable of seeing the ologic behind ousting Saddam. It is also a shame that as our troops move into battle, the only thing that you can do is belittle what they are about to do. No "God Bless the troops", or "Good Luck, guys", or "I don't agree with this, but Godspeed"... Just continued badgering and condescending remarks in a vain attempt to assure your own moral and intellectual superiority in the face of ideological ridicule by current events. Rocket Man Tex: Ah, yes. You got me. I'm really a neo-Nazi, and my real goal is to use the ignorant masses to prosecute an unjust war. Of course, I want the oil. Please, don't tell anyone? You can bet on it. Surrender now! You will join us eventually!!!
Wow, MacBeth...your accuracy is pretty astounding. And, don't worry Treeman, your secret is safe with me! Seriously Treeman, I wish you good health and Godspeed in doing your duty. As a US citizen, I thank you for your service.
I know. You might be a Communist, but you're still an American Communist... (j/k) BTW, I'm thousands of miles away from the fighting. I'm already deployed in a Homeland Security mission, so I'm fairly safe...
LMAO!!!! Oh, tree...you are a hoot. I love it...couldn't have provided a better example of circular reasoning if I tried...We are debating whether or not this war is just and necessary...So you refute two of it's least biased critics on the basis that they made it necessary...LOL! Yes, IF you assume that this war is necessary ( the very issue in question) then I can see how it follows that you can dismiss the opinions of those in know who say it isn't...as I have said about you before, if you base your argument on the premise that you are right, you will usually come to the conclusion that you agree with yourself after all... And please don't try and undermine my position by pointing out that it didn't come with a few accompanying " Good Luck troops" slogans...That is childish and stupid. I will reserve my right to use emtpty phrases if and where I choose ...I know too much about war ( my field of study ) have known too many involved ( for ex. 6 close relatives fought in WWII, including 3 on D-Day) and have too little finalized conclusions on my personal thoecratic leanings to throw easy to say but ultimately valueless catchphrases at a group of people I don't know just to make myself appear more patriotic in your eyes...If I knew someone personally who was going to war I would wish them heartfelt safety...if I knew which God I believed in I would pray to him for the safety of all concerned...but to assume that A) God is, as always, on our side, and will therefore protect our troops so that we can kill their troops more effectively goes against my somewhat limited impression of the Almighty..or B) My typing Good Luck Boys! will somehow bring someone back alive who otherwise wouldn't be ..well, both of those seem pretty arrogant and empty to me. And to take a vaguely disguised shot at my patriotism because I don't do that is beneath, if not you, then most people whose opinion I respect. I will say that,despite that kind of crap, if you are going over, I truly hope that you come back unscathed, but that is as far as my sense of personal integrity will allow me to go.
RTM...You've got to hand it to the guy...he is, if nothing else, consistent, and therefore predictable...
So it is the fault of the general who was following orders!!! Laughable at best. Try again. I'm sure you can do better next time.
It has been well documented that Schwartzkopf initially wanted to press on to Baghdad, but after he overflew the so-called "Highway of Death" he was so shocked by the carnage that he changed his mind. Like others at the time he was under the mistaken impression that most of the Republican Guard had been destroyed, and that Saddam would not survive the aftermath. At any rate the US military is not the Wehrmact; its commanders are not mindless little worker ants who "just follow orders". The generals make policy almost as much as the Commander in Chief. It is their reccommendations that the President acts upon. You display your conspiracy-junked ignorance of the military with this statement... We are? I thought we were debating the relevance of Walter Cronkite's opinion on whether or not this war if a good idea? OK, since it's justice/morality at hand... Hereyago: http://www.catholicjustwar.org/index.asp I am saying that they had ulterior motives for their (relatively tame) "opposition". C'mon, as the King of Conspiracy Theories, you can surely understand the powerful motivation that ulterior motives represent? And IF you assume that this war is unnecessary, then I can see how it follows that you can dismiss the opinions of those in the know who say it is. Guess it just depends on whether you believe that this war is necessary, doesn't it? Perhaps I came to my conclusions after years of studying this issue? Perhaps they are based on past history and patterns of behavior on the part of Saddam Hussein? Perhaps it is not just that I have convinced myself that I am right? Perhaps others have convinced me that this war is necessary? Is it possible that that is the case, and you are just being presumptuous? That was a simple observation. A truthful observation. Those "empty phrases" mean alot to the troops. Of course, being a big fancy military expert, you know alot about issues of morale, don't you? In other words, you're just too darned smart and sophisticated to get down and dirty with the little people and rally with the troops in such a mundane fashion? (can you hear the country accent? )Nice excuse to not support the troops there, buddy. Yes, I've no doubt you would. Since you support the troops. So. Much. Ah. So, because you are confused about exactly which God will actually act upon your request, you choose not to make the request? What, are you worried that if you ask the wrong God that the real God will get pissed at your blasphemy and direct a SCUD that would otherwise have missed by a kilometer and a half onto our Marines waiting to move? For one who is probably a die-hard cultural relativist (I'm guessing here, OK?) and probably does not believe in right or wrong (guessing again), I can see how you would ascribe your own beliefs to those of God. It is, of course natural for human beings to do so. Yes, of course that must be the case. Since God likely has no concepts of right and wrong where human beings are concerned, there is no reason to believe that he would heed requests for something that we would deem as a "good" thing to occur. Therefore neutrality and apathy is the only logical course of action to take. Well, I'm sure they do. Since you're the fancy highfalutin' academic who knows what God would and wouldn't listen to... I thought you and I were sinking into the abyss together? Does this mean you won't like my future shots at your lack of patriotism either? Well, we wouldn't want your sense of personal integrity to be damaged, would we? At any rate, I am safe for the forseeable future (unless Kim starts really acting up), so your sense of personal integrity is safe for now.
Better than the dang Ruskie kind! Yes I know. I just want you to know that regardless of our differences on this BBS, I admire you for the job you are doing. What you are doing is an important part of the current situation, and I wanted to let you know that I appreciate it. Keep up the good work!
<i>I look at our future as, I'm sorry, being very, very dark. Let's see our cards as we rise to meet the difficulties that lie ahead," </i> <i>"The time has come to put all of our distaste aside," he said. "That is the duty we owe our soldiers who had no role in deciding this course of action." </i> The most annoying people are the people who claim they're giving their opinions, then give something that sounds like a prepared speech. It just sounds to me like Cronkite is more worried about being remember for fancy quotes and fancy speeches then giving a legit opinion.
1) We were debating Cronkite, and his view that the war isn't necessary...at which point you dismissed his view as worth not much more than anyone else's, and I pointed out how you dismissed everyone who questioned the current administration's position on the war..and you pointed out how they were all qrong, and cited the fact that the war IS necessary as the premis upon which to construct your argument...if you don't see that this is circular reasoning, I don't know what to say. 2) Oh....now I'm the King of Conspiracies? Okay...I'll bite...treeman, what is my conspiracy theory regarding this war? Or better still, what is my conspiracy theory about anything? Not that you throw names and judgements around whithout substance, but just for my recollection, because gosh darnit I forget... 3) Nice try, but no go. If you think that either A) War is an either-or proposition, and that someone against any war has as much onus to disprove why there should be no war as the revers, I will say you are so far out on your branch you can't see the tree you're named for anymore. or B) many of the people in question, particularly Bush's father and Stormin Norman have much, much more motivation to automatically support the current administration than the opposite...see above. 4) Studying Saddam isn't the issue, unless you have evidence that he is sitting with his finger on the atomic bomb and can't wait to use it, there has been no evidence that he represents any tangible threat to the U.S., and that without the UN and/or the rest of the world being part of it, subjectively invading other nations whose leaders we happen to ( however accurately, or conveniently) think/know are bad men puts us in the position of dictating morality to the rest of the world whether they like it or not, and you know what people who dictate are called, no? Saddam Hussein, however heinous/evil he is is not worth sacrificing our international standing, our morality, or our repeated past position about pre-emptive defense and/or unilateralism...to become hypocrites because of Hussein allows him to do more damage to the US than he has ever been able to do on his own, and to introduce a wave of Patriot-esque laws which fundamentally change our way of living/freedoms compounds the issue beyond all reason. It's not about Hussein, it's about America and the world. There are plenty of Husseins around. But my point wasn't about whether or not you had done your homework on Saddam, although that was either an interesting attempt at recontextualization, or a massive misunderstanding, my point about your argument being specious was to do with the circular nature of it's construct, as already addressed. 5) A simple, truthfull observation accompanied as it was by condemnation and leaps of reasoning. In your mind my argument against the war was somehow lessened because it wasn't accompanied with "God Bless The US Army!"...I suppose that that was truthfull from your point of view...I just don't agree, and won't get into how distorted I consider that judgement. 6)I don't think the troops care diddly squat about me typing Good Luck to them while arguing a point about Walter Cronkite with you during a political debate in the hangout section of a basketball website....and I don't see what in the hell my education has to do with that myasma of reason and judgment, or with morality for that matter...Do you actually believe the stuff you're saying here? What are the connections between any of the points you made in that section ( Troops/military history/morality)!?!? 7) I do not consider it not supporting the troops to not wish them the blessings of a God I don't believe in during a debate on Walter Cronkite's view of the war, or the war at all for that matter...I support the troops insofar as I don't want to see their lives wasted in a war I see no justification for, nor do I want to see them waste other lives in the name of turning us into a Global bully. I know this will shock you, but your way of looking at things is not the only way, and all those who disagree with you aren't just looking for a convenient excuse to do the wrong thing. 8) So now I'm a liar and a non-patriot...You are a wonder of judgement and supposition...I frankly don't care whether you think I support the troops, nor do I feel the need to justify myself to you...and I completely understand your need to reduce this to personal mudslinging...anyone who thinks that it's all right to break treaties if you don't like them after you've signed them while at the same time going to war because you think someone else is doing the same thing obviously won't feel entirely comfortable arguing the issue on it's merits... 9) Again, I will not explain my religious beliefs to the likes of you...suffice it to say that I place non-hypocrasy as a higher moral priority than you evidently do...(see above re: treeaties if confused...or if treeman, call someone a name and type in a rolleyes) 10) You think it is applying my personal morality to suppose that God doesn't actually root for one side to kill another side in a war...and for once we are in agreement, insofar as I have any concept of God. I will suppose that you assuming that God is an American, or at least has season's tickets isn't a reflection of your unbelievably knee-jerk jingoism? 11) Once again...IF you assume that you are right, then you mught conclude that God would agree with you...IF you believe in God...You do see the assumptions here, don't you? Don't you?!!?!? 12) Let me get this straight...you castigate me for not appealing to a God I don't believe in, accuse me of applying my moral standards because I don't see the clarity of your vision that God would obviously agree with you and your rightness, and then you have the onions to say that I am the one claiming insight into the workings of the Divine!?!? Man, you are soi hypocritical I am amazed that you don't beat yourself up when you're not looking... 13) Again...shots at my patriotism may be your way of trying to further a discussion, but you will be doing it alone....Hey, now that I think of it I can see why you are such a big fan of the currnt administration. 14) I am glad that you will not be in harm's way as of yet, and will disregard your latest shot at my sense of persoanl integrity as I am sure it is confusing to you.
For those of you who are really concerned with Walter Cronkite's opinions and truly feel he is a credible unbiased source, I suggest you read the following. Here are some excerpts from a speech he gave to the United Nations in 1999. Link
damn....i would literally go to war and die to prevent that kind of yield of sovereignty to another power. i would volunteer.
