Okay, One More Post...But That's All!!!

[bskeptikal]

To all those who felt offended by my "first and last post," which turned out to be my "first but not last post," I apologize. I neither said nor believe that this board or the people who frequent it “suck.” I've probably been reading it longer than many of the people here and will continue to do so. But the truth is I visit here only to read about the Front Office Football game, and the off-topic stuff generally does not interest me. I'm not saying it is uninteresting, just not particularly interesting to me (international relations and Hornsmaniac's advice on how to be cocky and funny with chicks, of course, being the primary exceptions).

To those who call me a "coward" for not "defending my position" or what have you, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to defend. I think many would agree that the thread to which I was referring had degenerated into personal attacks and hateful comments, as similar threads in the past have done. But I specifically stated that this is not unique to this forum; those who watch Fox News or CNN or listen to the radio probably will agree that thoughtful, reasoned, and civil debate between people who disagree has become very rare.

If I am supposed to defend my obvious opposition to the upcoming war, I am happy to do so. First of all, many of us firmly believe there are ulterior motives behind this "war of liberation," such as control of middle east oil, US hegemony in a geo-strategic area, distracting the public from the failed war in Afghanistan, distracting the public from the failing economy, looking “tough” for election purposes, and generating a sufficient level of fear to justify the diversion of so much of the nation's treasury to the corporate military industrial complex, to name a few. But I won't even push those reasons because many simply do not believe them, and I certainly am not in a position to “prove” that those are the “real” reasons. Nevertheless, there are many important reasons to oppose this war that cannot easily be dismissed.

Iraq has not committed any act of aggression against the United States. Iraq was not responsible for 9-11. No credible evidence exists linking Iraq to Al Qaeda’s role in 9-11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attack on the United States. The United Nations has yet to establish that Iraq has usable weapons of mass destruction. There is no intelligence that Iraq has the ability to strike at the United States. According to the CIA, Iraq has no intention to attack America, but will defend itself if attacked. Tom Ridge, head of "homeland security," predicts that war in Iraq will result in a significant increase in terrorism against Americans civilians. According to congressional studies, the war will cost the United States from $100 billion to $2 trillion and may lead the global economy into recession. This cost of war is on top of the United States' $6.5 trillion national debt, which increases at a rate of $1.45 billion per day, and which further will be increased by Bush’s proposed $1.1 trillion in cumulative deficits for the next five years (this less than two years after he projected there would be $5.6 trillion in surpluses for the next decade). The World Heath Organization warns that up to half a million Iraqi people will be killed or maimed by American bombs. If Iraq has chemical or biological weapons, as the US claims, and will use them to defend itself, American soldiers will suffer massive casualties and most will return disabled. The United States already acknowledges that more than one-third of Gulf War 1 veterans, or approximately 85,000 US soldiers, are now disabled as a direct consequence of their service, even though Iraq used no weapons of mass destruction in that war. I could go on, but I've written too much already.

Of course, the propaganda machine is now going full throttle and we are about to be bombarded with (drum beat) "The Evidence" that justifies war, but those who remember (drum beat) "The Evidence" just prior to the first Gulf War (e.g., the doctored aerial photographs of Iraqi troops lined up on Saudi Arabia's border and the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter posing before Congress as a hospital worker to lie about Iraqi troops pulling babies from incubators and throwing them on the cold floor to die) are all too well aware that, as the saying goes, the first casualty of war is the truth.

If I am supposed to defend my social/economic/political beliefs, I don't really feel the need to, just as I do expect others to “justify” their beliefs to me. But let me assure you that I do not have a mohawk and do not stomp around wearing a studded leather jacket with a big circled A on the back; I am a classical anarchist of the Bakunin/Proudhon line of thinking. I also do not expect or intend to "convert" anyone to anarchism, though it is nice to see so many taking an interest in radical thinking. But I will say that anarchism as a social theory has a long intellectual history; it does not mean "chaos" and cannot be understood by referencing a dictionary.

To those who are interested in what anarchism is, Emma Goldman wrote two essays in the early 1900s that succinctly and eloquently describe anarchism (see Emma Goldman, "Anarchism: What it Really Stands For" at http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html and Emma Goldman, "What I Believe" at http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/whatibelieve.html). For a more thorough introduction to Anarchism and its history, Daniel Guerin has an excellent book on the subject (available at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0853451753/qid=1044341470/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-6049834-2129737?v=glance&s=books).

Finally, to those who think anarchism can never work, what if one were to propose a social order where 1% of the population possess more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, without any significant objection from the bottom 90%, a system where order is maintained by multiple levels of police, prisons, and militaries? Would that work? That is the system you are defending.

Now, having espoused my "silly little pseudo-intellectual-i-am-the-only-enlightened-one-in-the-western-hemisphere claptrap philosophy," I need to get some rest. Take care everybody.

…bskeptikal…
________________

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

-- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader and Hitler’s designated successor, quoted at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

[wade moore]

As much as the wise thing to do hear is just ignore this thread and let it go away, when have we ever been good at that?

The only thing I wanted to say is that you and so many other severely anti-war people (war at no cost) is that you overlook something...

there IS proof that Iraq has repeatedly broken a UN Resolution that was made to prevent Saddam from killing millions of people. The rules of the resolution say that Saddamn must have documentation and evidence of disposal of ALL weapons of mass destruction. he does NOT. That alone gives the US the legal basis to attack, let alone the fact that Hanz Blitz (sp?) has said that Iraq more than likely still has them.

That is all. I am not saying we SHOULD go to war, I am saying you and so many others just love to ignore facts.

[astralhaze]

Well, I guess I will open myself up to even more criticism. I agree completely with everything you just posted as they are exactly the positions I came to after years of searching. Come get me Fritz and Chief Rum. My idiocy knows no bounds.

[Alf]

I just watch a documentary yesterday that shows how much "The need for War" is marketed by Bush. Sickening !

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by wade moore
The only thing I wanted to say is that you and so many other severely anti-war people (war at no cost) is that you overlook something...

there IS proof that Iraq has repeatedly broken a UN Resolution that was made to prevent Saddam from killing millions of people. The rules of the resolution say that Saddamn must have documentation and evidence of disposal of ALL weapons of mass destruction. he does NOT. That alone gives the US the legal basis to attack, let alone the fact that Hanz Blitz (sp?) has said that Iraq more than likely still has them.


If you are refering to the resolution made in 1991 after the end of the Gulf War, it says no such thing. Don't believe me? Read for yourself.

http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/gulf_states/resolution_687.html

The resolution required him to disarm under supervision of the U.N. It did not "say that Saddamn must have documentation and evidence of disposal of ALL weapons of mass destruction."

Whether Saddam has disarmed or not is open to discussion. The position of France and Germany is that the inspectors need to find proof the he posseses these weapons in order to prove that he has not disarmed. The position of the United States and their allies is that Saddam has not, as you say, proven that he has disarmed, therefore he is in breach of that, and other, resolutions.

Even if we assume that he has breached the resolutions, that does not automaticaly, as you say, grant the U.S. "the legal basis to attack". If Iraq is found to be in breach of U.N. resolutions, the security council would then meet to decide what action should be taken. The U.S. could, of course, attack, but they would run the risk of being found guilty by the U.N. of an act of aggression in violation of international law.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oh goody, not only do you have no clue about the reality of the Iraqi situation but now you've proved yourself a liar as well.

I just knew the whole thing about your going away was too good to be true :(

[andy m]

give 'em hell bskeptikal, but unfortunately the people who don't want to listen to a diametrically opposed view simply won't, no matter how well you make you case. but from me at least, you get a: http://www.uknfl.co.uk/cutecast/emoticons/woot.gif

it's not about anti-america, it's about anti-bullshit.

[wade moore]

The resolution required him to disarm under supervision of the U.N. It did not "say that Saddamn must have documentation and evidence of disposal of ALL weapons of mass destruction."

Perhpas I misworded.. you are correct, and Saddam kicked out the UN Inspectors years ago.. so they could not supervise... so in light of that, the bruden of proof is on HIM, not US as many want it to be.. many are trying to say that if we cannot get 100% absolute proof if he has them.. well.. i don't care how many inspectors you have, Saddam can move and hide things well if he has the correct people working for him, so we'll never find it since he's had.. what.. almost 5 years since he kicked out the very UN Inspectors that were supposed to oversee this?

My personal opinion is that Clinton should have done more when this happened. Again, i'm not necessarily saying attack, but the UN Inspectors were booted and no one did anything about it.. If Clinton would have forced Saddam's hand then to keep the inspectors inside, we may not be in this mess..

[Fritz]

OK, I read the emma goldman.

her system seems like it would work for inanimate teddybears. for the rest of us it is crap.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by bskeptikal
Okay, One More Post...But That's All
I really hope you mean it this time.

Tarkus

[Alf]

Originally posted by wade moore
Perhpas I misworded.. you are correct, and Saddam kicked out the UN Inspectors years ago.. so they could not supervise...

If I recall correctly, the US called back the inspectors. Saddam never kicked out anyone.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Alf
If I recall correctly, the US called back the inspectors. Saddam never kicked out anyone.
Yeah he never kicked them out, just wouldn't let them visit any sites, especially all those golden castles he builds while his people starve. Oh wait, they only starve because of US sanctions. My bad. :rolleyes:

Tarkus

[Kosta]

bskeptikal.... bbrilliant.....

An eloquent explanation and reasoning of your views and position.... and the comebacks from the usual mob amount to piddly little "go away and stay away" remarks.

[wade moore]

Kosta,

With all due respect I never said go away.. I merely pointed out quite a few holes/disregard of other facts in his post.. he made good points, but did not consider the other side.

And Saddam did not "kick them out" he just disobeyed and would not give them full access to monitor. I mean.. give me a break.. he was not following what he was supposed to be doing, that's the point.. He hid from the inspectors and disobeyed the rules..

Again.. i'm not saying war is the solution, i'm saying that so many people are disregarding the fact that Saddam is in the wrong. Saddam has broken the rules in the resolution. Saddam is potentially hiding weapons of mass destruction. Saddam does not feed his people. Saddam spends billions of dollars elsewhere, not to feed his people. If sanctions were not there, people would still starve.. it is not that Iraq has no money, it's that it does not go to feed the people.

It is absurd to say the US is evil and killing the Iraqi people and not look at what Iraq, inparticular Saddam is doing. For the 100th time, I'm not saying that we should go to war. I'm saying that Saddam/Iraq are VERY much in the wrong and something needs to be done to stop/correct him. What has been done so far does not work, so perhaps the only way is war -- i do not know. But, to disregard the actions of that said is just silly.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Kosta
An eloquent explanation and reasoning of your views and position.... and the comebacks from the usual mob amount to piddly little "go away and stay away" remarks.
Actually, I've already responded to stupid posts like this (bskeptikal's) in the past and just don't have the energy to do it again. But if you really want do a search and insert the response here. And maybe bskeptikal can go find some anarchistic society in which to live. Oh wait, there aren't any. :rolleyes:

Tarkus

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Kosta
piddly little "go away and stay away" remarks.

Well, you're half right.

Mine was an extremely sincere "go away and stay away" remark.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Tarkus
Yeah he never kicked them out, just wouldn't let them visit any sites, especially all those golden castles he builds while his people starve. Oh wait, they only starve because of US sanctions. My bad. :rolleyes:

Tarkus

And no one in America ever starves, everyone is going to be rich by benefiting from the tax cuts. We never build useless shrines here instead of helping the homeless.

Get off your horse and actually do some thinking. MAybe if you made a reasoned response people wouldn't think you're a dumbass.

Someone actually uses reason in a post here and he's an idiot. No where does he say US sanctions kill Iraqis. He actually gives logical reasons why some may be against a war, and why some follow blindly like sheep. God forbid someone tries to think through things instead of coming up with 2nd grade sarcastic retorts.

[wade moore]

Meh.. I hope I'm not being grouped with the likes of some of the other responses..

ahwell. .this is why i usually stay out of these threads.. i dont' want to send off the wrong signal..

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Easy Mac He actually gives logical reasons why some may be against a war

I find no logical reason for providing aid & comfort to the enemy.

All the "logic" in the world doesn't excuse that.

[Easy Mac]

Where did he say we should give aid to the enemy? It must be in the invisible ink that is so prevelant on the board.

All he did was give reasons why some oppose the war, and they were actually valid concerns. If reason has no use in this world, then whats the point of intellectual discourse. We may as well just go to war against everyone.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
And no one in America ever starves, everyone is going to be rich by benefiting from the tax cuts. We never build useless shrines here instead of helping the homeless.

Get off your horse and actually do some thinking. MAybe if you made a reasoned response people wouldn't think you're a dumbass.

Someone actually uses reason in a post here and he's an idiot. No where does he say US sanctions kill Iraqis. He actually gives logical reasons why some may be against a war, and why some follow blindly like sheep. God forbid someone tries to think through things instead of coming up with 2nd grade sarcastic retorts.
And maybe if you actually read posts instead of responding like a dumbass you wouldn't come off as one. I never said he said US sanctions kill Iraqis, but several others have implied that point. The reason I don't respond to this jibberish is because I've done it enough times already and it gets nowhere. And while I just started to type a response to all the inaccuracies and BS in his post, I'm just not gonna do it. There's just no way I'm going to convince an anarchist of anything, so why waste my time?

Tarkus

[HornedFrog Purple]

Finally, to those who think anarchism can never work, what if one were to propose a social order where 1% of the population possess more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, without any significant objection from the bottom 90%, a system where order is maintained by multiple levels of police, prisons, and militaries? Would that work? That is the system you are defending.

I wonder if Proudhon/Bakunin classical anarchism would have worked in say.... 1941. If you say yes, you might enjoy a swastika on the White House.

Anarchism while practical in a test-tube society, is impractical. Why? Because power exists and power will always exist. The difference being in a republic/democratic society there are things called checks and balances of power. These are more prevalent in a society structured on this than one of a dictatorship or monarchy. Thats the principle behind democratic/republic societies in that there are more checks and balances in place.

Is the democratic/republic model perfect? No. Is it better than relying on everyone else to not suffer the vices of greed without some sort of check and balance? I think so.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

The think with Anarchism I believe is that it would only last a few months and the n people will realize that they have been fools all along .

[McSweeny]

i have to say i agree with everything that Easy Mac and bskeptical have said

i don't get why people want him gone so badly? he makes an educated and well said argument. So he's anti-war and so he makes some excellent points. It's amazing what people will stoop to when the possibility of being wrong presents itself

[Airhog]

I think he has every right to post here, regardless of what he thinks. If you dont like it, then dont read it right? Dont tell him to go away, because he has an opinion you people dont want to hear.

[wade moore]

Originally posted by Airhog
I think he has every right to post here, regardless of what he thinks. If you dont like it, then dont read it right? Dont tell him to go away, because he has an opinion you people dont want to hear.

Even better, rather than don't read it..

read it, reply and try to understand if you don't see the logic.. put up information from the other side as to why you think it's wrong.. nothing productive comes out of, "your ideas are wrong, they suck, the end." I may have come down on his post, but I feel like i did it constructively by pointing out some flaws in it.. unfortunately he has chosen this "i'm not posting anymore" stand which is what makes me mad.. if you're going to say our ideas stink, we won't discuss logically, and then run and hide.. to me you are no better than those who just say, "go away"..

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Where did he say we should give aid to the enemy?

Trying to find excuses for them or protect them sure as hell doesn't discomfit them any.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by McSweeny
i don't get why people want him gone so badly? he makes an educated and well said argument. So he's anti-war and so he makes some excellent points. It's amazing what people will stoop to when the possibility of being wrong presents itself
You are totally missing the point. I don't think anyone has issue with someone coming in here and giving their point of view and then participating in the ensuing discussion. What I, and I believe others have a problem with is the following.

"Hello. My first and last post." Okay this in itself is not bad, but he then follows it up with:

"At that point I realized the level of discourse here was similar to that of the Yahoo message boards, where the level of discourse is about that of a group of lunatics and chimps arguing over whether the blue sky is red or green. It's unfortunate, but thoughtful, reasoned, and civil discussions between people who disagree are virtually nonexistent in america these days."

So here he comes with his only post calling the members of this board lunatics and chimps incapable of thoughtful, reasoned, and civil discussions. It was at this point where essentially he could have said anything and I'd have told him to get lost, which is what several people did.

But that's not all, then we have:

"Okay, One More Post...But That's All!!!" Ah, he's going to honor us with his presence and infinite wisdom once more. How gracious. Of course, I don't know why he'd even bother since those that disagree with him are lunatics and chimps incapable of any reasonable conversation.

I would not have had a problem with him and could easily have gotten involved in a discussion over the issues with him if not for this BS. If someone comes in here spewing crap, he should expect to get crap back. :p

Tarkus

[mrskippy]

1.) It is believed that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have a strong relationship. Some believe Iraq may have supplied bin Laden with materials for 9/11 and the anthrax attacks.

2.) Hussein has attacked his own people with biological and/or chemical weapons.

3.) Iraq has the ability to strike Israel, Saudia Arabia, and other U.S. allies in the region.

4.) Iraqi people will die in a war. People always will die in war. 3,000 people died on 9/11 in a clear act of war. The Iraqi people have been warned. They know what's coming. But their dictator will kill them if they go into their bunkers.

5.) Iraq did use chemical/biological weapons on missiles aimed at U.S. soldiers in Saudia Arabia. While the Patriots may have destroyed the SCUDS in air some of the bio/chem agents may have contaminated the air ever so slightly.

6.) I don't believe the Anthrax vaccine caused the harm to our soldiers.

7.) There is much more at stake here than just oil. Saddam is a tyrant. He compares himself to Nebuhcanezer (sp?). He is hell bent in rebuilding Babylon and taking over the entire region, including Israel.

8.) Saddam probably has underground facilities for his weapons of mass destruction, his nuclear, chemical and biological programs. I don't believe anyone has went underground into his massive tunnel network. And I don't believe the UN resolutions allow that.

9.) The UN at one time served its purpose. But it's now trying to become too much of a one world order. They don't pass strong enough resolutions and that's why Iraq continues to do what it does.

10.) Clearly the UN has no intention of supporting a war in Iraq. So long as the Security Council includes Iraqi allies it will never happen. The French have strong ties to the Arab world.

11.) Anti-war protests are anti-American. Treason is not protected by free speech. In the DC protest they had Egyptian and other Arab nationals there. I'm sure a few Iraqi-Americans were there too. It is treason to fraternize with the enemy.

12.) My own father, a Vietnam Veteran, can't stand these anti-war protests. He hates Jane Fonda for what she did during that war. And he hates any celebrity who goes against America in this war.

13.) If you don't like the war, shut up. You must support your country at all costs. To not do so is un-American.

[witko]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
I find no logical reason for providing aid & comfort to the enemy.

All the "logic" in the world doesn't excuse that.


i hope you dont own a gas powered car.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by mrskippy
1.) It is believed that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have a strong relationship. Some believe Iraq may have supplied bin Laden with materials for 9/11 and the anthrax attacks.

2.) Hussein has attacked his own people with biological and/or chemical weapons.

3.) Iraq has the ability to strike Israel, Saudia Arabia, and other U.S. allies in the region.

4.) Iraqi people will die in a war. People always will die in war. 3,000 people died on 9/11 in a clear act of war. The Iraqi people have been warned. They know what's coming. But their dictator will kill them if they go into their bunkers.

5.) Iraq did use chemical/biological weapons on missiles aimed at U.S. soldiers in Saudia Arabia. While the Patriots may have destroyed the SCUDS in air some of the bio/chem agents may have contaminated the air ever so slightly.

6.) I don't believe the Anthrax vaccine caused the harm to our soldiers.

7.) There is much more at stake here than just oil. Saddam is a tyrant. He compares himself to Nebuhcanezer (sp?). He is hell bent in rebuilding Babylon and taking over the entire region, including Israel.

8.) Saddam probably has underground facilities for his weapons of mass destruction, his nuclear, chemical and biological programs. I don't believe anyone has went underground into his massive tunnel network. And I don't believe the UN resolutions allow that.

9.) The UN at one time served its purpose. But it's now trying to become too much of a one world order. They don't pass strong enough resolutions and that's why Iraq continues to do what it does.

10.) Clearly the UN has no intention of supporting a war in Iraq. So long as the Security Council includes Iraqi allies it will never happen. The French have strong ties to the Arab world.

11.) Anti-war protests are anti-American. Treason is not protected by free speech. In the DC protest they had Egyptian and other Arab nationals there. I'm sure a few Iraqi-Americans were there too. It is treason to fraternize with the enemy.

12.) My own father, a Vietnam Veteran, can't stand these anti-war protests. He hates Jane Fonda for what she did during that war. And he hates any celebrity who goes against America in this war.

13.) If you don't like the war, shut up. You must support your country at all costs. To not do so is un-American.
ditto on the first 10.

Tarkus

[McSweeny]

interesting points mrskippy, but there is a lot of "it is believed" or "i believe" in there. Too much believing and too little proving.

and i hope that you were being sarcastic with your anti-war protests are un-american or whatever

[mrskippy]

Just a little tounge-in-cheek sarcasm. But I do agree it's important to support your country if it does go to war.

I'm sure there is evidence on much of these points. And I'm sure Powell will present it to the UN in due time.

[Scarecrow]

Originally posted by Mrs. Kippy
11.) Anti-war protests are anti-American. Treason is not protected by free speech. In the DC protest they had Egyptian and other Arab nationals there. I'm sure a few Iraqi-Americans were there too. It is treason to fraternize with the enemy.

12.) My own father, a Vietnam Veteran, can't stand these anti-war protests. He hates Jane Fonda for what she did during that war. And he hates any celebrity who goes against America in this war.

13.) If you don't like the war, shut up. You must support your country at all costs. To not do so is un-American.

http://www.thefobl.com/forums/images/smilies/whythis.gif

[wade moore]

Originally posted by McSweeny
interesting points mrskippy, but there is a lot of "it is believed" or "i believe" in there. Too much believing and too little proving.

and i hope that you were being sarcastic with your anti-war protests are un-american or whatever

I doubt he was.. probably listens to a lot of O'Reilly who spews this idea a lot...

I think it's a bit far-fetched besides certain extremists, but it is an idea with popularity among right-wingers.. which i believe we all know skippy is..

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
11.) Anti-war protests are anti-American. Treason is not protected by free speech. In the DC protest they had Egyptian and other Arab nationals there. I'm sure a few Iraqi-Americans were there too. It is treason to fraternize with the enemy.

13.) If you don't like the war, shut up. You must support your country at all costs. To not do so is un-American.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is anti-American not to speak up when you disapprove of your country's policies. It is not treason, nor is it ever treason, to exercise your free speech rights. The treasonous act is the attempt to suppress them.

[MJ4H]

I can't believe im replying; I promised myself I would stay out of this stuff.

O'Reilly actually says it is not anti-american to protest the war. However, he does say that once the decision is made that you should support *the troops* since they are just doing what they are told. At least, that's what I hear when I listen to his radio show on the way home from work each day. If he said it was anti-American somewhere else, then I stand corrected.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by clintl
It is not treason, nor is it ever treason, to exercise your free speech rights.

Actually, it IS, if that speech meets the simple criteria set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

What I think is too often missed by those upset by this bit of reality is the use of the word "or" instead of the word "and".

That means there are _two_ ways to commit treason (each with a single requirement), not only one way with two requirements.

Since I don't believe the Constitution meant physical adherence "as if by suction or glue", you have to look toward the second defintion of for what "adherence" means.

"To remain devoted to or be in support of something" (American Heritage)
or "To hold, be attached, or devoted; to remain fixed, either by personal union or conformity of faith, principle, or opinion; as, men adhere to a party, a cause, a leader, a church." (Webster)

Again, note the use of the expansive word "or" instead of the restrictive word "and". _Any_ of the above would qualify as adherence, there's not requirement that it be _all_ of the above.

Whether opposing U.S. policy and concurring with the policy of a foreign state meets the requirement of "aid and comfort" is all I see that's left for debate. And I pray for the day that matter will be put into the hands of a judge & jury, instead of these crimes simply being ignored.

[clintl]

Opposing a war is not the same thing as "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Opposition to war does not equal support for the enemy. It means that a moral or political objection to warfare or the policies that the current government is following in its decision to make war. "Aid and Comfort" clearly implies concrete acts of material support, not mere rhetoric against the war. If your suggestion were actually true, how would you account for the military giving exemptions to conscientious objectors? You might as well outlaw the Quakers if it's to be interpreted that way.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by clintl
""Aid and Comfort" clearly implies concrete acts of material support

Clearly, we disagree.

[McSweeny]

ag man! best get rid of all the commies and anyone who doesn't agree with all US policies

[wade moore]

Originally posted by MattJones4Heisman
I can't believe im replying; I promised myself I would stay out of this stuff.

O'Reilly actually says it is not anti-american to protest the war. However, he does say that once the decision is made that you should support *the troops* since they are just doing what they are told. At least, that's what I hear when I listen to his radio show on the way home from work each day. If he said it was anti-American somewhere else, then I stand corrected.

I oversimplified.. He says that war protestors are anti-american, not that protesting war is anti-american..

a fine line, i know..

However (atleast this is my understanding of what he says), he basically says that most of the protestors have alterior motives (they hate bush, they are socialists, etc) and therefore they are anti-american..


And he says that anyone who protests after the war has started is ant-american..

[Fritz]

it is not un-American to disagree or protest, nor is it an act of treason. Treason would be speaking out in favor of your enemies. Despite disagreeing with government policy, people still have the obligations of citizens that they must live up to. Not fulfilling these obligations, even if you object to policy, is "un-American" and may be a crime.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
it is not un-American to disagree or protest, nor is it an act of treason. Treason would be speaking out in favor of your enemies. Despite disagreeing with government policy, people still have the obligations of citizens that they must live up to. Not fulfilling these obligations, even if you object to policy, is "un-American" and may be a crime.

Such as?

[Fritz]

what part?

[astralhaze]

Not fulfilling these obligations, even if you object to policy, is "un-American" and may be a crime.

[Fritz]

Sure. I will use WW2 examples because I feel they will be more neutral:

Participating in various drives (pots & pans, war bonds, etc) was seen a civic obligation. Not "doing your part" could be viewed as "un-American" but was certainly not a crime.

Refusing to participate in rationing was a civic obligation, but it was a crime not to comply.

[astralhaze]

OK, what if you are a devout pacifist and are against all war. By participating in drives you would be tacitly supporting the war. Would you then be "un-american" to refuse to participate?

[Fritz]

absolutely. you are a member of our society and have obligations. Personal likes and dislikes do not exempt you from obligation and duty.

[astralhaze]

Obligated and duty bound by what?

[JeffNights]

85,000 gulf war vetrans disabled eh?

where the hell do you get your stats sonny?

Thats nothing but complete and unmitigated BULLSHIT.

[Qwikshot]

When will there be the next I'll never post again, but I have to say this...I can't wait...hypocrite...stick around and defend your views, don't spill invective and then hide off in the shadows, dig in and hold your ground...


Well the movie star well she crashed her car
But everyone thought she was beautiful, even without her head
Everyone thought she was dangerous...

Well the chief of police, kept the crime off the streets
But deep in his heart, we all knew he felt differently
We all knew he was an anarchist...

[Barkeep49]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Actually, it IS, if that speech meets the simple criteria set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

What I think is too often missed by those upset by this bit of reality is the use of the word "or" instead of the word "and".

That means there are _two_ ways to commit treason (each with a single requirement), not only one way with two requirements.

Since I don't believe the Constitution meant physical adherence "as if by suction or glue", you have to look toward the second defintion of for what "adherence" means.

"To remain devoted to or be in support of something" (American Heritage)
or "To hold, be attached, or devoted; to remain fixed, either by personal union or conformity of faith, principle, or opinion; as, men adhere to a party, a cause, a leader, a church." (Webster)

Again, note the use of the expansive word "or" instead of the restrictive word "and". _Any_ of the above would qualify as adherence, there's not requirement that it be _all_ of the above.

Whether opposing U.S. policy and concurring with the policy of a foreign state meets the requirement of "aid and comfort" is all I see that's left for debate. And I pray for the day that matter will be put into the hands of a judge & jury, instead of these crimes simply being ignored.

This is an interesting idea. However, I would challenge that short of a formal declaration of War, something vested in the power of Congress, than greater civil liberties, including the right to criticise US foreign policy should be protected. Sure Congress has given the OK to send troops. But I think that enemies in and out of war time should be very different.

[astralhaze]

So we don't have a right as Americans to be opposed to, and speak out against, war? Allrighty then. Hier habe ich jene Freiheit Sprache gedacht, hat gedacht, und Versammlung war eines der Dinge, daß uns von totalitären Regierungen getrennt hat. Ich würde hassen, in Ihrer Sicht dem Amerika zu leben. Seig heil mein fuhrer!!! Seig heil!!!

[astralhaze]

d'oh

[mrskippy]

D'oh! Look what I started.

I guess me beef was that some of these anti-war protests featured Arab nationals, which to me seems to be taking it a little too far ... "please don't bomb us, please." And you're hanging with them at a protest.

Also, when you start to take sides. I've heard people at these protests defend the Iraqi people. And I never hear them defending their own people.

Those are the things I mean by treason.

There's nothing wrong with protesting a war. But when your protest has to do with wanting to protect the enemy, that's wrong.

When Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam, that could have been considered treason. Just ask a Vietnam Vet.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by mrskippy
D'oh! Look what I started.

I guess me beef was that some of these anti-war protests featured Arab nationals, which to me seems to be taking it a little too far ... "please don't bomb us, please." And you're hanging with them at a protest.


So it is wrong to associate with Arab nationals? I think I might retract that one if I were you. It comes off as exceptionaly racist.


Also, when you start to take sides. I've heard people at these protests defend the Iraqi people. And I never hear them defending their own people.


What are we supposed to be defending our people from? If Canada was planning to start bombing Seattle very shortly, yeah, I would be protesting against that. A lot of civilians in Iraq are going to be dying in Iraq very shortly. Whether that is acceptable or not is a seperate debate, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with being opposed to civilian deaths.


There's nothing wrong with protesting a war. But when your protest has to do with wanting to protect the enemy, that's wrong.


What? I don't understand this one. Okay, let's say that I am against us attacking Mexico, for whatever reason, but the president has decided that Mexico is our enemy. How do I protest the war without you thinking that I want to protect our enemy? I mean, if we didn't attack them, that is about the best protection one could hope for, right? Or should I be against the war because, let's say that it might hurt the economy or whatever, but I shouldn't be opposed to the idea that Mexicans will die in the war, because they are "the enemy." I really do not understand.


When Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam, that could have been considered treason. Just ask a Vietnam Vet.

So if I ask any old Vietnam Vet I find, and he thinks Jane Fonda going to North Vietnam was treason, she should be hung? Or should we poll Vietnam Vets for their opinion and go with the majority? Sure, it could be considered treason, just as I could consider you to be from Mars, but that doesn't mean it was treason.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Obligated and duty bound by what?

By being a citizen and a member of our society. Citizen's have Rights and <i>Responsibilities</i>. Why do people always forget the responsibilities?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by JeffNights
85,000 gulf war vetrans disabled eh?




DUDE! One of my buddies blew out his knee playing hackie sack in the gulf. He is "15% disabled" according to his exit papers.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by mrskippy
When Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam, that could have been considered treason. Just ask a Vietnam Vet.

No need to ask a vet.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
By being a citizen and a member of our society. Citizen's have Rights and <i>Responsibilities</i>. Why do people always forget the responsibilities?

What are those responsibilities? Who defines them?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by astralhaze
What are those responsibilities? Who defines them?

I can not enumerate all of the responsibilities. As far as I know there is no handbook that they issue you when you are born.

Some responsibilities are legal, and are defined by the appropriate law making (or interpretive) body.

Some responsibilities are societal, and are defined by society and the community.


Edit: Please note that I can respond to your questions without mentioning even once that you are a dick.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
I can not enumerate all of the responsibilities. As far as I know there is no handbook that they issue you when you are born.

Some responsibilities are legal, and are defined by the appropriate law making (or interpretive) body.

Some responsibilities are societal, and are defined by society and the community.


Edit: Please note that I can respond to your questions without mentioning even once that you are a dick.

Okay, legal responsibilities I certainly understand. Societal responsibilities seem to be a more nebulus concept.

Give me some examples of societal responsibilities.

BTW, I apologize for my comments to you yesterday. They were out of line and I was wrong.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Give me some examples of societal responsibilities.

There could be many things, some with stronger obligation than others. As you say, this is more nebulos.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by astralhaze
If you are refering to the resolution made in 1991 after the end of the Gulf War, it says no such thing. Don't believe me? Read for yourself.

http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/gulf_states/resolution_687.html

The resolution required him to disarm under supervision of the U.N. It did not "say that Saddamn must have documentation and evidence of disposal of ALL weapons of mass destruction."


LiberalHaze, check out this resolution:

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

Here is a sample from page 3:

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this
resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under
relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced
inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the
disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent
resolutions of the Council;

The above gentleman forgot about resolution 1441. It does mention that they need verification.

[astralhaze]

"This page cannot be displayed"

[Bonegavel]

Sorry, I ditched the copy and paste in favor of a better link.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

below some commentary is the actual text of the resolution.

[Bonegavel]

On a lighter note, Hans Blix has got to be one of the greatest names ever. If I ever need a penname, this is it.

[astralhaze]

Yeah, I did a google search on it. I guess you and I are just interpreting section 2 differently. It says "accordingly decides to set up an enhanced
inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the
disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent
resolutions of the Council"

The way I interpret that is saying that Saddam needs to cooperate with the inspectors who supervise the disarmament process. The verification part is that those inspectors confirm whether or not Iraq has disarmed. My post was that at no time has the U.N. required Saddam to provide documentation and evidence of weapons being disarmed. That is what the U.N. inspectors are there for. To supervise and verify that dissarmament is taking place. Of course it needs to be verified, I was just questioning what method the U.N. required.

[Bonegavel]

Agreed. After I read it some more, I was thinking that verification was never explicitly defined as paper or otherwise.

To me, verification is the ability to prove, without question, that an action has been completed. I think we can safely assume that "verbal" verification is right out.

[astralhaze]

Certainly. As Ronald Reagan said, "trust, but verify."

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Certainly. As Ronald Reagan said, "trust, but verify."

Nice.

And, I didn't mean any harm with LiberalHaze. I thought you might find it funny.

Though we don't seem to agree politically, I find your discourse enjoyable.

[astralhaze]

No offense was taken :)

[detroit_fan]

What if the anti-war crowd is wrong? Many of our friends and family may have to pay a severe price. I have heard many good arguments on both sides of the issue (just so everyone knows I support the US going to war). I am intellegent enough to understand that Bush is prob. making up some of the evidence, but there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam is a madman who would stop short of nothing to hurt us. I admit more than one person has called me crazy, but I don't want to see anymore of my civilian friends or family die because we didn't do anything.

[detroit_fan]

how would you account for the military giving exemptions to conscientious objectors?

What? During the Gulf War all conscientious objectors I know of were court-martialed.