[DRB]

As long as you realize that your arguement swings both ways for the hawks and doves alike. For all of it. No rallies for or against the war here in the US are going to save any lives or make the world a safer place to live in. It doesn't afford any soldier one iota more in the way of protection or make his job any easier. If it did I would be out rallying permanently.

The stance is not what makes a lemming its the reason for taking that stance that categorizes a lemming.

It makes me wonder if it is you that doesn't have a passing concept of liberty or freedom especially when you say things like "Protest all you want until the war begins, but when your country goes to war, you should get on board or seethe quietly" or "...I just believe it is one that is overused and based far too often on just doing what your friends are doing rather than what you have calmly and rationally researched and believe is the right thing to do." In both you seem to espouse some belief that there are limits to the right to free speech or peacful assembly. Limiting protest and dissent does not make our nation a better place regardless of content, reason or circumstance, it severly weakens it.

You do indicate that that it is our right to think, say and believe what you like. And that is good. So maybe I'm just confused over the mixed message.

I didn't avoid military service. (but you might not have been talking about me).

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by ohio
What about the pacifist father not wanting to leave the world with more turmoil than they found it? Or the tree-hugging father that wants to preserve the rainforests so that his children (and grandchildren) might enjoy the environmental, medicinal, and even aesthetic benefits? Or the dissenting father that would prefer to see the country invest money in the education of its youth, rather than the "stability" of our oil supply?

These men have just as much conviction as you. They just see different solutions to protecting their family, and it may involve just as much "personal sacrifice" as all your flag-waving and chest-beating.

...different. I hate war but think it's sometimes a necessary evil. I love trees and the environment, but think that environmental regulations should not be twisted to prevent a homeowner from building a deck that would encroach on the four-toed vole's burrow. I also favor increased emphasis on education(my wife's a teacher), but don't think that throwing good money after bad is the answer for children whose parents pack them off to daycare as soon as they can and expect THEM to educate their children so that both parents can work to pay for a new SUV. Most people have good intentions, but the road to Hell is paved with them. I guess each of us just has a different idea about which road to take to the same general destination, even when holding the same map. I have no arguement with people having convictions that differ from my own. I wasn't elected emperor. There's nothing wrong with flag-waving during wartime or any other time. And I haven't beaten my chest once or challenged anyone to a fight. I haven't done those things since college!

DRB, let me clarify those statements:

I recognize that people are entitled to protest and have attended more than a few myself. What I was saying was that as a nation, we should vigorously debate important issues such as whether or not to make war. Once the decision has been taken, however- for the benefit of unity- we should present a united front to the international community...as in United States of America. I do not favor any limit to dissent or protest that is not self-imposed. e.g.(and I know it is an imperfect one) a group of bikers is lost in the woods. Half the group says North is towards home, half says South is towards home, but you don't have enough water and time before dark to go both ways. A vote is taken and one of the North voters is swayed to head South. I say that for the good of all, the entire group should head South rather than have part of the group split off and head North because they are not happy with the decision taken. i.e. even if you are not personally happy with the decision to go to war, for the benefit of our national unity, you should not pitch a temper tantrum because your choice was not taken. I am not against dissent, but I feel that sometimes(war being one example) you should swallow it down in favor of unity. Does that make any more sense? Even though many of my posts are long(and perhaps long-winded), my attempts to use an economy of words sometimes lead to misinterpretation.

 

[dangitboy]

I agree..that it is stupid that when our troops inadvertently kill a few civilians, who had plenty of notice to move aside...it is a huge ordeal...and remember..Iraq is going to claim that it is far worse than it really is..its an old war strategy called propaganda.
But it was ok, I guess, when Saddam was executing his own people, many times for no better reason than to make examples of them so that he may secure his Iron Thumb rule...what do you think the Republican Guard would do if they were posted around your town? We would be forced to fight or hide...because I dont think the lack of a uniform would stop them from shooting at us.
And...how many civilians died on 9/11?

Dave