"Joel K. 'Jay' Furr" <jfurr-nospam@nospam-furrs.org> wrote in message news:Xns962CC3C50D543jfurrfurrsorg@216.168.3.44...> IMHO, Jane Fonda *was* a traitor and should have been prosecuted as one.> I'm not overly amused by her recent statements.>
Yes, as a Christian I can forgive her, but Christians can still say "I> forgive you. Five to seven years, all but three suspended.">
Joel K. 'Jay' Furr was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
IMHO, Jane Fonda *was* a traitor and should have been prosecuted as one. >I'm not overly amused by her recent statements.>Yes, as a Christian I can forgive her, but Christians can still say "I >forgive you. Five to seven years, all but three suspended."
As someone who wasn't involved with Vietnam but who has a very low opinion of Fonda because of her exploits then, this sounds like the perfect attitude.
(although I don't know about the suspended sentence part...)
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Charles Beauchamp 3 April 2005 05:50:40 [ permanent link ]
winnard wrote:> "Joel K. 'Jay' Furr" <jfurr-nospam@nospam-furrs.org> wrote in message> news:Xns962CC3C50D543jfurrfurrsorg@216.168.3.44...>> IMHO, Jane Fonda *was* a traitor and should have been prosecuted as>> one. I'm not overly amused by her recent statements.>>
Yes, as a Christian I can forgive her, but Christians can still say>> "I forgive you. Five to seven years, all but three suspended.">>
I forgive her for that Jane Fonda Workout phase.>
winnard
No way. Them Fonda Workout tapes were a great thing getting bazillions of fat middle aged PMSing women to work the lard off their asses. That is always a good thing. I am surprised that you don't agree with this entirely and assume you will recant after reading this.
"Charles Beauchamp" <C.E.Beauchamp@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message news:mPednTE2Xfxp1tLfRVn-qw@comcast.com...> winnard wrote:> > "Joel K. 'Jay' Furr" <jfurr-nospam@nospam-furrs.org> wrote in message> > news:Xns962CC3C50D543jfurrfurrsorg@216.168.3.44...> >> IMHO, Jane Fonda *was* a traitor and should have been prosecuted as> >> one. I'm not overly amused by her recent statements.> >>
Yes, as a Christian I can forgive her, but Christians can still say> >> "I forgive you. Five to seven years, all but three suspended."> >>
I forgive her for that Jane Fonda Workout phase.> >
winnard>
No way. Them Fonda Workout tapes were a great thing getting bazillions of> fat middle aged PMSing women to work the lard off their asses. That is> always a good thing. I am surprised that you don't agree with this
entirely> and assume you will recant after reading this.>
--
I was a bigger fan of the Peter Fonda workout. Weed and whiskey.
Charles Beauchamp 3 April 2005 06:46:47 [ permanent link ]
winnard wrote:> "Charles Beauchamp" <C.E.Beauchamp@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message> news:mPednTE2Xfxp1tLfRVn-qw@comcast.com...>> winnard wrote:>>> "Joel K. 'Jay' Furr" <jfurr-nospam@nospam-furrs.org> wrote in>>> message news:Xns962CC3C50D543jfurrfurrsorg@216.168.3.44...>>>> IMHO, Jane Fonda *was* a traitor and should have been prosecuted as>>>> one. I'm not overly amused by her recent statements.>>>>
Yes, as a Christian I can forgive her, but Christians can still say>>>> "I forgive you. Five to seven years, all but three suspended.">>>>
I forgive her for that Jane Fonda Workout phase.>>>
winnard>>
No way. Them Fonda Workout tapes were a great thing getting>> bazillions of fat middle aged PMSing women to work the lard off>> their asses. That is always a good thing. I am surprised that you>> don't agree with this entirely and assume you will recant after>> reading this.>>
-->
I was a bigger fan of the Peter Fonda workout. Weed and whiskey.>
winnard
Denial is a fugly thing and you should feel ashamed.
Joel K. 'Jay' Furr 3 April 2005 07:47:05 [ permanent link ]
swq22@yahoo.com wrote in news:lbru41loo8e0ukssg1lb2eualrmhgute18@4ax.com:
IMHO, Jane Fonda *was* a traitor >
On a treason scale of 1-10, how does she compare to those responsible> for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution ?
That one's hard to even get a start on. Inventing a casus belli in order to stop communism, but also wind up causing the death of 50,000+ American servicemen, isn't a clear aid-and-comfort-to-the-enemy.
Joel K. 'Jay' Furr 6 April 2005 16:47:05 [ permanent link ]
"Homer Hickam" <hhickam@hiwaay.net> wrote in news:1112790778.150456.196840 @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Way too easy.
Homer, where do you stand on the whole Waffle House/Denny's/Cracker Barrel thing? What's your favorite spot for 2 o'clock AM dining? What's your typical order?
Joel K. 'Jay' Furr 6 April 2005 17:25:56 [ permanent link ]
"Homer Hickam" <hhickam@hiwaay.net> wrote in news:1112793397.013687.176450 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Hmmm. Well, it would have to be my wife who packs and ships the danm> thing and I'm just not sure how I would explain that to her. Talk> about being confused and off-balance! So... no. Catch me on book> tour and I'll try to remember to bring one with me. We have several> hundred left and probably more on the way.
I was kidding about the cup. We're not allowed to use smilies in this chatroom so I guess the absence thereof made it less obvious.
Joel K. 'Jay' Furr 7 April 2005 04:44:57 [ permanent link ]
"Homer Hickam" <hhickam@hiwaay.net> wrote in news:1112820946.949337.102220 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
It may interest rsfc'ers to know I was just interviewed by a LA Times> reporter about Jane Fonda. I wonder where he found out that I'd> forgiven her?>
If he googled on "forgive Jane Fonda" on Google, then said "hmm" and clicked "search groups", the thread here on rsfc would have been at the top of the search results with your posts well represented. That may have done it.
I was two wars earlier and I don't forgive her - just as>> most of us WWII vets don't.>
And you know this, exactly how?
I belong to 7 veterans organizations and know what they think. I attend and/or participate in numerous veteran meetings around the country. Hanoi Jane supporters, if any, in those groups keep their mouths shut.
Apparently she now even admits she was wrong - what more does anyone need?
I was two wars earlier and I don't forgive her - just as>> >> most of us WWII vets don't.>> >
And you know this, exactly how?>>
I belong to 7 veterans organizations and know what they think. I>> attend and/or participate in numerous veteran meetings around the>> country. Hanoi Jane supporters, if any, in those groups keep their>> mouths shut.>
I wonder why.>
Apparently she now even admits she was wrong - what more does anyone>> need?>
Actually, I read an interview with her the>other day, and she isn't admitting she's wrong.>She doesn't apologize for going to North Vietnam.>She regrets getting duped into posing in a picture>that makes it look like she's cheering on Vietcong>shooting down American planes (in reality, of course,>the soldiers were all singing songs and having>a party, and there was no battle going on at all).>She admits that any idiot should have seen what was>coming when they asked her to stand by the guns, and>she fell for it. But she does not apologize for>going to North Vietnam in the first place.
Then she should have supported our troop instead of playing footsie with the Cong. Our troop didn't make the policy which sent them there.
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, Trent Woodruff:>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Then she should have supported our troop instead of playing footsie>>> with the Cong. Our troop didn't make the policy which sent them there.
How do you support the troops if you disagree with the mission?
Pardon me? You seriously cannot make a distinction between the> individual soldier and the mission he's carrying out?
Seriously?
I am honestly awe-struck by your lack of objectivity.
I think he's asking for concrete examples of what it means to "support the troops" when you in fact oppose the mission.
In most cases, that phrase is used to mean "you cannot debate any bill about funding the war," and "you cannot complain about the war, or argue that it is misguided, because that gives aid and comfort to the enemy and hurts our troops' morale." And I am 100% that meaning of it.
Now, if you mean don't spit on the troops when they return, don't call them babykillers (even the ones who actually kill babies), and maybe even send them Xmas cards or girlie magazines, I can agree with that. But, unfortunately, it is the first sense that is meant most often, as is clear from the context.
rich -- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
J. Hugh Sullivan 13 April 2005 17:29:03 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:03:31 -0700, Aaron Ginn <aaron.ginn@gmail.com> wrote:
Then she should have supported our troop instead of playing footsie>> with the Cong. Our troop didn't make the policy which sent them there.>
How do you support the troops if you disagree with the mission?>
Aaron
I'm not sure I agreed with the mission - certainly not with the way we fought. But I would have given aid and comfort to our own vice the enemy. I suspect most people are intelligent enough to discern the difference.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:03:31 -0700, Aaron Ginn <aaron.ginn@gmail.com>>wrote:>
Then she should have supported our troop instead of playing footsie>>>with the Cong. Our troop didn't make the policy which sent them there.>>>
How do you support the troops if you disagree with the mission?>>
Aaron>>
I'm not sure I agreed with the mission - certainly not with the way we>fought. But I would have given aid and comfort to our own vice the>enemy. I suspect most people are intelligent enough to discern the>difference.>
Dodgeball. It was a real question and a rhetorical evasion isn't a legit answer.
Trent Woodruff wrote:>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>
Then she should have supported our troop instead of playing footsie>>>with the Cong. Our troop didn't make the policy which sent them there.>
How do you support the troops if you disagree with the mission?>
Pardon me? You seriously cannot make a distinction between the> individual soldier and the mission he's carrying out?
That jingoistic slogan states that we should support all the troops - plural - and not make distinctions on an individual basis. I don't do that for any group, including the military.
And wasn't that what Nuremburg was all about? Do you support men who blindly follow orders if you disagree with the premise of those orders? What kind of courage does it require to do what you're told?
Seriously, I've heard many right-wingers claim that supporting the troops means you support the mission. If that's true, I guess I can't support the troops.
Seriously?>
I am honestly awe-struck by your lack of objectivity.
I guess we need to clarify what it means to "Support the Troops". Does it mean we want them to be successful? Do we lend support to whatever they do simply because they were following orders?
I'll support a soldier who makes a principled decision. I'll support a soldier who disobeys a direct command that will cause the willful death of innocents. But I simply don't see how I can support a soldier who carries out actions that cause the death of innocent civilians and justifies it by saying he was "protecting my freedoms".
Trent Woodruff 13 April 2005 21:03:48 [ permanent link ]
Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff wrote:>>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Then she should have supported our troop instead of playing footsie>>>>with the Cong. Our troop didn't make the policy which sent them there.
How do you support the troops if you disagree with the mission?
Pardon me? You seriously cannot make a distinction between the>> individual soldier and the mission he's carrying out?
That jingoistic slogan states that we should support all the troops - >plural - and not make distinctions on an individual basis. I don't do >that for any group, including the military.
I suppose if you want to nitpick the statement to death, you can find a reason not to support it, but that's really all irrelevant to the fact that you can, very easily, support the troops while disagreeing entirely with the mission they're carrying out.
Frankly though, I think you're just looking for an excuse not to support the troops.
And wasn't that what Nuremburg was all about? Do you support men who >blindly follow orders if you disagree with the premise of those orders? >What kind of courage does it require to do what you're told?
Many times, a tremendous amount of courage. You ask that question like you truly have absolutely no understanding of what courage entails.
Seriously, I've heard many right-wingers claim that supporting the >troops means you support the mission.
The ones who have said such a thing are idiots. Wouldn't it be better for you if you actually used your brain to examine the statement on it's own merits, rather than letting someone else make your decisions for you? Or maybe that's what you want...as long as someone else makes your decisions for you, you don't have to shoulder the responsibility for them, in your mind. Gotcha.
If that's true, I guess I can't support the troops.
Perhaps you should try to think for yourself, rather than letting someone else do it.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
J. Hugh Sullivan 13 April 2005 21:04:25 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:32:25 -0400, Jeffrey Davis <res099c9@alltel.net> wrote:
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:>
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:03:31 -0700, Aaron Ginn <aaron.ginn@gmail.com>>>wrote:>>
Then she should have supported our troop instead of playing footsie>>>>with the Cong. Our troop didn't make the policy which sent them there.>>>>
How do you support the troops if you disagree with the mission?>>>
Aaron>>>
I'm not sure I agreed with the mission - certainly not with the way we>>fought. But I would have given aid and comfort to our own vice the>>enemy. I suspect most people are intelligent enough to discern the>>difference.>>
Dodgeball. It was a real question and a rhetorical evasion isn't a legit >answer.
The question was so lacking in intelligence that I decided not to give it credibility with a direct answer. But I gave an "instead of" anyhow.
Supporting the troops is not an absolute necessity but doing a disservice to them is disloyal and unAmerican - and apparently you support disloyalty to the country. They didn't order themselves there. If one doesn't have the guts to challenge the source don't be stupid enough or callous enough to take it out on the little guys. It would be better to abstain from that action.
C;mon, Jeffrey, you aren't THAT dumb. Pick on the cause, not the little draftee who probably doesn't know why the heck he's there.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:32:25 -0400, Jeffrey Davis><res099c9@alltel.net> wrote:>
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:>>
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:03:31 -0700, Aaron Ginn <aaron.ginn@gmail.com>>>>wrote:>>>
Then she should have supported our troop instead of playing footsie>>>>>with the Cong. Our troop didn't make the policy which sent them there.>>>>>
How do you support the troops if you disagree with the mission?>>>>
Aaron>>>>
I'm not sure I agreed with the mission - certainly not with the way we>>>fought. But I would have given aid and comfort to our own vice the>>>enemy. I suspect most people are intelligent enough to discern the>>>difference.>>>
Dodgeball. It was a real question and a rhetorical evasion isn't a legit >>answer.>>
The question was so lacking in intelligence that I decided not to give>it credibility with a direct answer. But I gave an "instead of">anyhow.>
That's what you geezers call "chickening out"?
Supporting the troops is not an absolute necessity but doing a>disservice to them is disloyal and unAmerican - and apparently you>support disloyalty to the country. They didn't order themselves there.>If one doesn't have the guts to challenge the source don't be stupid>enough or callous enough to take it out on the little guys. It would>be better to abstain from that action.>
C;mon, Jeffrey, you aren't THAT dumb. Pick on the cause, not the>little draftee who probably doesn't know why the heck he's there.>
You've yet to come up with a way this support for one disrespect for the others might be done.
Randolph M. Jones 13 April 2005 23:05:16 [ permanent link ]
Trent Woodruff wrote:>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>
Trent Woodruff wrote:>>>
Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>
Then she should have supported our troop instead of playing footsie>>>>>with the Cong. Our troop didn't make the policy which sent them there.>>>>
How do you support the troops if you disagree with the mission?>>>
Pardon me? You seriously cannot make a distinction between the>>>individual soldier and the mission he's carrying out?>>
That jingoistic slogan states that we should support all the troops - >>plural - and not make distinctions on an individual basis. I don't do >>that for any group, including the military.>
I suppose if you want to nitpick the statement to death, you can find> a reason not to support it, but that's really all irrelevant to the> fact that you can, very easily, support the troops while disagreeing> entirely with the mission they're carrying out.>
Frankly though, I think you're just looking for an excuse not to> support the troops.
I'm completely confused now. I'm not sure whether I support the troops or not. Can you give me a list of the things I would be doing if I support the troops but not the war?
Trent Woodruff 14 April 2005 01:49:34 [ permanent link ]
Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
So do you support a soldier who disobeys a direct order to do something >to which he is philosophically opposed?
A good question, and here is my answer:
If a soldier disobeys a direct order to do something THAT IS LEGAL but to which he is philosophically opposed, he should be court-martialed. Not that I wouldn't sympathise with the individual, because I certainly would...but becoming a part of the military means that you will many times have to do something which you may not agree with.
However, if a soldier disobeys a direct order to do something ILLEGAL (even if he's NOT philosophically opposed to it), then I would support him wholeheartedly.
I see the two cases as being very different in nature.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff 14 April 2005 01:52:56 [ permanent link ]
Randolph M. Jones was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff wrote:>>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>>Trent Woodruff wrote:>>>>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Then she should have supported our troop instead of playing footsie>>>>>>with the Cong. Our troop didn't make the policy which sent them there.
How do you support the troops if you disagree with the mission?
Pardon me? You seriously cannot make a distinction between the>>>>individual soldier and the mission he's carrying out?
That jingoistic slogan states that we should support all the troops - >>>plural - and not make distinctions on an individual basis. I don't do >>>that for any group, including the military.
I suppose if you want to nitpick the statement to death, you can find>> a reason not to support it, but that's really all irrelevant to the>> fact that you can, very easily, support the troops while disagreeing>> entirely with the mission they're carrying out.>> Frankly though, I think you're just looking for an excuse not to>> support the troops.
I'm completely confused now. I'm not sure whether I support the troops >or not. Can you give me a list of the things I would be doing if I >support the troops but not the war?
That would be a very long list, actually. Two thoughts off the top of my head:
If you see a military member on the street (airport, most likely, really), thank them for being willing to put their life on the line for what the country's leaders believe is important. This is probably the best thing you CAN do to support them. It means the most to most of us.
In fact, even mention that you don't support the war while you're thanking them (as long as it's clear your thanks is sincere)...we'll understand and appreciate it probably all the more for that.
Send care packages to the military members (following the right procedures so nobody thinks it's a bomb, of course).
I don't see any reason at all why someone who is opposed to the war would have a problem doing either of these things.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff 14 April 2005 01:54:19 [ permanent link ]
Ralph Kennedy was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> writes:
I'm saying I refuse to accept the definition of "support">> that most of the conservatives in this chatrum were using,>> which most often explicitly meant "don't debate policy."
Exactly. The typical reasoning went, practically>word for word: "Okay, we've had our policy debate,>and we've chosen to go for war, so now the debate is>over and it's time for everyone on both sides to line>up behind the President." Failure to do that is>labelled "not supporting the troops." Or worse,>by some wingnuts (like "treason").
But Ralph, all of you on the other side were telling us how that wasn't an accurate statement.
Why aren't you helping me to explain that to Aaron?
Is it because you're ok with him taking that tact as long as it's not making you look bad? (Honest question.)
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff wrote:>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>
So do you support a soldier who disobeys a direct order to do something >>to which he is philosophically opposed?>
A good question, and here is my answer:>
If a soldier disobeys a direct order to do something THAT IS LEGAL but> to which he is philosophically opposed, he should be court-martialed.> Not that I wouldn't sympathise with the individual, because I> certainly would...but becoming a part of the military means that you> will many times have to do something which you may not agree with.>
However, if a soldier disobeys a direct order to do something ILLEGAL> (even if he's NOT philosophically opposed to it), then I would support> him wholeheartedly.>
I see the two cases as being very different in nature.
So you advocate that which is legal instead of that which is right?
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:20:30 -0700, Aaron Ginn <aaron.ginn@gmail.com>> wrote:>>It's simply the most extreme version of the conundrum faced by those who >>advocate supporting the troops but not the mission.>
It's so extreme that it's not applicable.
I don't see why not, but if you're not willing to play along...
So do you support a soldier who disobeys a direct order to do something >>to which he is philosophically opposed?>
NO! He can disobey an unlawful order and see if it is upheld in court.> But, when he is in the service he should leave his adverse philosophy> at home. He's obligated to obey lawful orders which philosophy doesn't> affect.
How many times must I say protest to the top dog NOT to the troops.> When the issue arises say essentially what I have - it's not the fault> of the servicemen, it's the fault of the policymakers if you must find> fault.
Oh believe me, the lion's share of the blame lies squarely at the feet of those who make the policy.
I didn't agree with the riots during Nam. I thought Fonda should have> been jailed and the draft dodgers who went to Canada should have been> shot IF they returned to this country. I would have been pleased to> assist in either case.
So you believe a man should be forced to kill and die for his country, and if he refuses to do so, should be shot?
Trent Woodruff 14 April 2005 06:09:42 [ permanent link ]
Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff wrote:>>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
So do you support a soldier who disobeys a direct order to do something >>>to which he is philosophically opposed?
A good question, and here is my answer:>> If a soldier disobeys a direct order to do something THAT IS LEGAL but>> to which he is philosophically opposed, he should be court-martialed.>> Not that I wouldn't sympathise with the individual, because I>> certainly would...but becoming a part of the military means that you>> will many times have to do something which you may not agree with.>> However, if a soldier disobeys a direct order to do something ILLEGAL>> (even if he's NOT philosophically opposed to it), then I would support>> him wholeheartedly.>> I see the two cases as being very different in nature.
So you advocate that which is legal instead of that which is right?
From the soldier's perspective, I HAVE to. I signed on the dotted line saying that I would obey ALL LAWFUL ORDERS. Period.
See, that's what you don't understand here. As I've pointed out to you several times already, we in the military recognize that there will be times when we will have to do things we don't want to do. That is the nature of warfare, after all (only the sadistic and mentally unbalanced WANT to kill anyone). But we do those things, because they are legal under the international rules of war.
We knowingly accept that fact when we sign up.
The armchair quarterbacks of the world can feel all high and mighty about it, but there can be no other perspective for us.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff 14 April 2005 06:10:30 [ permanent link ]
Ralph Kennedy was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>woodruffs@cableone.net (Trent Woodruff) writes:>>>Ralph Kennedy was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>>rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> writes:
I'm saying I refuse to accept the definition of "support">>>> that most of the conservatives in this chatrum were using,>>>> which most often explicitly meant "don't debate policy."
Exactly. The typical reasoning went, practically>>>word for word: "Okay, we've had our policy debate,>>>and we've chosen to go for war, so now the debate is>>>over and it's time for everyone on both sides to line>>>up behind the President." Failure to do that is>>>labelled "not supporting the troops." Or worse,>>>by some wingnuts (like "treason").
But Ralph, all of you on the other side were telling us how that>> wasn't an accurate statement.
By this I assume you mean that you agree with me>that failure to line up behind the President does not>constitute "not supporting the troops."
Dude, were you asleep during that whole conversation? I thought I had been quite clear about it.
Why aren't you helping me to explain that to Aaron?
Because I only happened to read Rich's post and>that's what I responded to, and I have no idea what>Aron's opinion is on this subject?
Convenient.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff 14 April 2005 06:11:21 [ permanent link ]
Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
I didn't agree with the riots during Nam. I thought Fonda should have>> been jailed and the draft dodgers who went to Canada should have been>> shot IF they returned to this country. I would have been pleased to>> assist in either case.
So you believe a man should be forced to kill and die for his country, >and if he refuses to do so, should be shot?>I just want to be clear on where you stand.
Oh good heavens Aaron, please don't take Hugh's idiotic ramblings as anything approaching objectivity.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
J. Hugh Sullivan 14 April 2005 15:53:25 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:37:58 -0700, Aaron Ginn <aaron.ginn@gmail.com> wrote:
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:20:30 -0700, Aaron Ginn <aaron.ginn@gmail.com>>> wrote:>>>It's simply the most extreme version of the conundrum faced by those who >>>advocate supporting the troops but not the mission.>>
It's so extreme that it's not applicable. >
I don't see why not, but if you're not willing to play along...
That you are not able to see is your problem, not mine. In your example you have a brutal dictator who is interested in destroying a race of people; that in no way pertains to the USA.
So do you support a soldier who disobeys a direct order to do something >>>to which he is philosophically opposed?>>
NO! He can disobey an unlawful order and see if it is upheld in court.>> But, when he is in the service he should leave his adverse philosophy>> at home. He's obligated to obey lawful orders which philosophy doesn't>> affect.>
So you support legal torture?
If that is how you see the issue of failure to obey a legal order because of some stupid hangup, I would INSIST on legal torture. I would have preferred to discuss rationally but you appear not to.
Suffice it to say that in the military one's private opinion, if in opposition to legal orders, have no credibility whatsoever unless supported by a court. If unsupported, double the punishment.
J. Hugh Sullivan 14 April 2005 15:58:10 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:40:43 -0700, Aaron Ginn <aaron.ginn@gmail.com> wrote:
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:>
How many times must I say protest to the top dog NOT to the troops.>> When the issue arises say essentially what I have - it's not the fault>> of the servicemen, it's the fault of the policymakers if you must find>> fault.>
Oh believe me, the lion's share of the blame lies squarely at the feet >of those who make the policy.
I'm glad we got that far. But it's ALL, not just "lion's share". But blame is in the eye of the beholder and may have no legal status.
Still, a man is responsible for his own actions.
That may or may not be true in the military or even at work. I sometimes disagreed with top management but, by my continuing to accept their paycheck I was bound to follow the policy. My alternative would have been to resign my position. You don't have that luxury in the military.
Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:>
I didn't agree with the riots during Nam. I thought Fonda should have>>> been jailed and the draft dodgers who went to Canada should have been>>> shot IF they returned to this country. I would have been pleased to>>> assist in either case.>
So you believe a man should be forced to kill and die for his country, >>and if he refuses to do so, should be shot?>>I just want to be clear on where you stand.>
Oh good heavens Aaron, please don't take Hugh's idiotic ramblings as>anything approaching objectivity.>
Trent>Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
I'd like to be more like Trent so I'm working to become a COMPLETE idiot. I'm not quite dumb enough yet but I'm getting there.
Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>
I'm perfectly rational. I believe that the killing of innocent >>civilians in offensive warfare is akin to murder. You don't. We won't >>meet anywhere in the middle here, I guarantee it.>
That is frankly not a rational stance, because it IS, in fact, an> impossibility.
This is perfectly possible. Never engage in an offensive war and you will not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.
Trevor Zion Bauknight 14 April 2005 17:56:28 [ permanent link ]
In article <425da10a.660710@news1.news.adelphia.net>, sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
Support the troops or don't - just don't bad mouth them or give aid> >> and confort to the enemy a la Hanoi Jane.> >
I'm not necessarily defending Fonda. I just want to know how I can > >support the troops while opposing their mission. Simply repeating over > >and over again that I can do this does not bring me one iota closer to > >how to do so. So far in this thread I've been called unintelligent, > >lacking in objectivity, and a lemming for asking this, yet no one has > >yet provided a workable solution to this.>
How many times must I say protest to the top dog NOT to the troops.> When the issue arises say essentially what I have - it's not the fault> of the servicemen, it's the fault of the policymakers if you must find> fault.
Why? Why should the soldiers be off-limits for criticism?
Don't slap the child visiting yours in hopes that your child will> understand his misbehavior. Or, don't blame the baby for being born> when you helped create him. Support can be the mere absence of> misdirected and unwarranted criticism.
Soldiers are children incapable of distinguishing what is right from what is wrong?
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
J. Hugh Sullivan 14 April 2005 21:17:14 [ permanent link ]
On 14 Apr 2005 05:05:32 -0700, deemsbill@aol.com wrote:
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:40:43 -0700, Aaron Ginn <aaron.ginn@gmail.com>>> wrote:>>
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:>> >
How many times must I say protest to the top dog NOT to the>troops.>> >> When the issue arises say essentially what I have - it's not the>fault>> >> of the servicemen, it's the fault of the policymakers if you must>find>> >> fault.>> >
Oh believe me, the lion's share of the blame lies squarely at the>feet>> >of those who make the policy.>>
I'm glad we got that far. But it's ALL, not just "lion's share". But>> blame is in the eye of the beholder and may have no legal status.>>
Still, a man is responsible for his own actions.>>
That may or may not be true in the military or even at work. I>> sometimes disagreed with top management but, by my continuing to>> accept their paycheck I was bound to follow the policy. My>alternative>> would have been to resign my position. You don't have that luxury in>> the military.>>
Hugh>
Yes you do, you just have to accept the consequences.>
J. Hugh Sullivan 14 April 2005 21:26:19 [ permanent link ]
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:56:28 GMT, Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote:
In article <425da10a.660710@news1.news.adelphia.net>,> sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:>
Support the troops or don't - just don't bad mouth them or give aid>> >> and confort to the enemy a la Hanoi Jane.>> >
I'm not necessarily defending Fonda. I just want to know how I can >> >support the troops while opposing their mission. Simply repeating over >> >and over again that I can do this does not bring me one iota closer to >> >how to do so. So far in this thread I've been called unintelligent, >> >lacking in objectivity, and a lemming for asking this, yet no one has >> >yet provided a workable solution to this.>>
How many times must I say protest to the top dog NOT to the troops.>> When the issue arises say essentially what I have - it's not the fault>> of the servicemen, it's the fault of the policymakers if you must find>> fault.>
Why? Why should the soldiers be off-limits for criticism?
Because the effectiveness of the team overrides concerns about the individual, especially his contradictory philosophy. The effectiveness of the team is dependent on unified action unless it is a Chinese Fire Drill.
Don't slap the child visiting yours in hopes that your child will>> understand his misbehavior. Or, don't blame the baby for being born>> when you helped create him. Support can be the mere absence of>> misdirected and unwarranted criticism.>
Soldiers are children incapable of distinguishing what is right from >what is wrong?
Usually more so than their superiors - plus they don't have the responsibility.
Please note that I said "usually" and don't go off on some wild tangent as is your frequent tactic.
Sounds like you have trouble at work, too, unless you work for mommy or daddy.
Trevor Zion Bauknight 14 April 2005 21:50:51 [ permanent link ]
In article <425ea93e.1547164@news1.news.adelphia.net>, sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
If we had stopped them at the border, let them face legal> consequences. But the cowards shirked their responsibility and hid> under mama's apron until the danger was over.
Mama Canada?
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
I didn't agree with the riots during Nam. I thought Fonda should have>> >> been jailed and the draft dodgers who went to Canada should have been>> >> shot IF they returned to this country. I would have been pleased to>> >> assist in either case.>> >
So you believe a man should be forced to kill and die for his country, >> >and if he refuses to do so, should be shot?>> >
I just want to be clear on where you stand.>>
If your reading comrehension was a little better you would have noted>> that I said "IF they returned to this country".>
Oh, well that makes all the difference in the world!>
Trent Woodruff 15 April 2005 04:32:40 [ permanent link ]
J. Hugh Sullivan was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:48:05 -0000, rich hammett
If we had stopped them at the border, let them face legal>>> consequences. But the cowards shirked their responsibility and hid>>> under mama's apron until the danger was over.
They were pardoned, you know.
I didn't pardon them - a lily-livered president did that.
I really wouldn't consider Gerald Ford to be lily-livered at all.
In fact, far far from it.
But don't let objectivity get in the way of your idiocy, Hugh.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff 15 April 2005 04:34:17 [ permanent link ]
Ralph Kennedy was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>J. Hugh Sullivan:
But the cowards shirked their responsibility and hid>> under mama's apron until the danger was over.
Choosing to go to Canada to avoid participating>in an immoral war does not make one a coward (or not>a coward either, for that matter).
Correct. The only thing that can make them a coward under those circumstances are the REASONS they fled to Canada.
If it was because they refused to participate in an unjust war, then they're probably not cowards (though they COULD stay in the States and accept the consequences of that choice if they were REALLY not cowards).
If it was because they just didn't want to go to war, then they're more than likely cowards.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff 15 April 2005 04:35:37 [ permanent link ]
J. Hugh Sullivan was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:11:21 GMT, woodruffs@cableone.net (Trent>>Woodruff) wrote:>>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
I didn't agree with the riots during Nam. I thought Fonda should have>>>> been jailed and the draft dodgers who went to Canada should have been>>>> shot IF they returned to this country. I would have been pleased to>>>> assist in either case.
So you believe a man should be forced to kill and die for his country, >>>and if he refuses to do so, should be shot?>>>I just want to be clear on where you stand.
Oh good heavens Aaron, please don't take Hugh's idiotic ramblings as>>anything approaching objectivity.
I'd like to be more like Trent so I'm working to become a COMPLETE>idiot. I'm not quite dumb enough yet but I'm getting there.
You have mastered the art, and then some.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff 15 April 2005 04:37:12 [ permanent link ]
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
I'm perfectly rational. I believe that the killing of innocent >>>civilians in offensive warfare is akin to murder. You don't. We won't >>>meet anywhere in the middle here, I guarantee it.
That is frankly not a rational stance, because it IS, in fact, an>> impossibility.
This is perfectly possible. Never engage in an offensive war and you will>not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.
That presumes that all offensive actions are not, in the same instance, defensive actions.
Offense and initiative are an important part of war. If you sit still and let the enemy come to you on your home ground, you WILL lose the war.
And not only that, now YOUR innocent civilians will be killed.
You find that alternative acceptable? I not only don't find it acceptable, I do not find it rational at all.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trevor Zion Bauknight 15 April 2005 09:11:03 [ permanent link ]
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull@adelphia.net> wrote:> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:52:31 GMT, Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu>> wrote:
But, doesn't defense ultimately mean you have to go on offense - WWII>>> is an example.>>
No.>
So, when should we have quit in WWII? Where did defense stop and> offense start? Didn't the offense start on 8 Dec 1941? Should we have> done nothing other than ask the Japs to apologize?
I believe that our involvement in WWII was determined prior to our being attacked at Pearl Harbor.
What should we have done about 9/11 in your opinion?>>
Gone after the people responsible for carrying it out and those who >>funded them.>
Bravo Zulu! But you betray your opinion about "I support a > standing military force for defensive purposes" by supporting> offensive purposes.
I don't consider retaliation against a hostile force that has already attacked us offensive. See above re WWII, also.
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
Trevor Zion Bauknight 15 April 2005 09:15:58 [ permanent link ]
Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
that the military is currently being used defensively.>
As well, while I certainly agree with you that our actions against> Iraq are in no way "defensive", do you honestly believe that our> actions against Afghanistan weren't "defensive"?
I remain skeptical of our good intentions with regard to Afghanistan. Certainly, al-Qaeda functioned in its lawless areas and the Taliban turned out to be a less effective ally than we had hoped; but our pursuit of al-Qaeda there was half-hearted at best and, in retrospect, it seems we've done little beyond installing a UNOCAL-friendly regime to control the immediate vicinity of Kabul.
Do you believe that in order for a military action to be "defensive",> it must take place "on your home court"? That's not rational.
No.
Doing what you're told doesn't require courage; it requires submission. >
That's simply not true. Quite frankly, such a statement precisely>>> demonstrates that you really don't understand what courage entails.>
He's probably not in the military, and so he can't possibly comment >>accurately on military matters...>
Trev, stop putting words in my mouth. Just because you're so cowardly> that you cannot possibly come up with a rational argument doesn't mean> you have to make up outright lies about what I am saying.
Heh.
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
J. Hugh Sullivan 15 April 2005 16:58:29 [ permanent link ]
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 05:11:03 GMT, trev@sc.edu (Trevor Zion Bauknight) wrote:
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull@adelphia.net> wrote:>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:52:31 GMT, Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu>>> wrote:>
But, doesn't defense ultimately mean you have to go on offense - WWII>>>> is an example.>>>
No.>>
So, when should we have quit in WWII? Where did defense stop and>> offense start? Didn't the offense start on 8 Dec 1941? Should we have>> done nothing other than ask the Japs to apologize?>
I believe that our involvement in WWII was determined prior to our>being attacked at Pearl Harbor.
There are certainly rumors to that effect. But if you are wrong you are also immoral by your definition. >
What should we have done about 9/11 in your opinion?>>>
Gone after the people responsible for carrying it out and those who >>>funded them.>>
Bravo Zulu! But you betray your opinion about "I support a >> standing military force for defensive purposes" by supporting>> offensive purposes.>
I don't consider retaliation against a hostile force that has already>attacked us offensive. See above re WWII, also.
That was always my philosophy when I was more agile - you can make any opponent mad enough to take the first swing then you can always claim self-defense. I love it.
J. Hugh Sullivan was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:11:21 GMT, woodruffs@cableone.net (Trent>>>Woodruff) wrote:>>>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:>
I didn't agree with the riots during Nam. I thought Fonda should have>>>>> been jailed and the draft dodgers who went to Canada should have been>>>>> shot IF they returned to this country. I would have been pleased to>>>>> assist in either case.>
So you believe a man should be forced to kill and die for his country, >>>>and if he refuses to do so, should be shot?>>>>I just want to be clear on where you stand.>
Oh good heavens Aaron, please don't take Hugh's idiotic ramblings as>>>anything approaching objectivity.>
I'd like to be more like Trent so I'm working to become a COMPLETE>>idiot. I'm not quite dumb enough yet but I'm getting there.>
J. Hugh Sullivan was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:48:05 -0000, rich hammett>
If we had stopped them at the border, let them face legal>>>> consequences. But the cowards shirked their responsibility and hid>>>> under mama's apron until the danger was over. >
They were pardoned, you know.>
I didn't pardon them - a lily-livered president did that.>
I really wouldn't consider Gerald Ford to be lily-livered at all.>
In fact, far far from it.>
But don't let objectivity get in the way of your idiocy, Hugh.
Trevor Zion Bauknight 15 April 2005 17:13:43 [ permanent link ]
In article <425fb690.1115183@news1.news.adelphia.net>, sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
I'm not about to do something wrong while working even if my boss tells > >>>me to. Fortunately, I work for someone who wouldn't tell me to do > >>>something immoral at work, and so I'm not faced with the necessity of > >>>walking the hell out of here.> >>
Wrong and immoral have not been the same thing in these discussions.> >
Well, I'm using them in the same sense.>
If you add acolumn of figures wrong, I suppose that's immoral. That's> what I get from your generalization.
I'm not sure how making mistakes and being inefficient even relate to this thread about larger issues of right and wrong...
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
Trevor Zion Bauknight 15 April 2005 17:15:16 [ permanent link ]
In article <425fb9c7.1938046@news1.news.adelphia.net>, sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
So, when should we have quit in WWII? Where did defense stop and> >> offense start? Didn't the offense start on 8 Dec 1941? Should we have> >> done nothing other than ask the Japs to apologize?> >
I believe that our involvement in WWII was determined prior to our> >being attacked at Pearl Harbor.>
There are certainly rumors to that effect. But if you are wrong you> are also immoral by your definition.
Please, by all means, take this absurd connection you've made in your mind and run with it. Incorrect != immoral, and I'm certain that I've never claimed otherwise.
What should we have done about 9/11 in your opinion?> >>>
Gone after the people responsible for carrying it out and those who > >>>funded them.> >>
Bravo Zulu! But you betray your opinion about "I support a > >> standing military force for defensive purposes" by supporting> >> offensive purposes.> >
I don't consider retaliation against a hostile force that has already> >attacked us offensive. See above re WWII, also.>
That was always my philosophy when I was more agile - you can make any> opponent mad enough to take the first swing then you can always claim> self-defense. I love it.
That would be immoral.
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
But the cowards shirked their responsibility and hid>> under mama's apron until the danger was over. >
Choosing to go to Canada to avoid participating>in an immoral war does not make one a coward (or not>a coward either, for that matter).
It does if they have accepted the privileges of living in this country and shirk the responsibilities. Only a coward would run from his legitimate responsibility. Not even a coward can decide which laws to obey.
Zaphod Beeblebrox 15 April 2005 17:30:46 [ permanent link ]
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:20:57 GMT, kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph> Kennedy) wrote:>
J. Hugh Sullivan:>>
But the cowards shirked their responsibility and hid>>>under mama's apron until the danger was over. >>
Choosing to go to Canada to avoid participating>>in an immoral war does not make one a coward (or not>>a coward either, for that matter).>
It does if they have accepted the privileges of living in this country> and shirk the responsibilities. Only a coward would run from his> legitimate responsibility. Not even a coward can decide which laws to> obey.>
OK - I'll bite. Why was going to war in some hellhole a million miles from home a "legitimate responsibility?" Exactly who here in America was in any danger because of the Vietnamese and needed defending?
Hugh
-- I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis. I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>
I'm perfectly rational. I believe that the killing of innocent >>>>civilians in offensive warfare is akin to murder. You don't. We won't >>>>meet anywhere in the middle here, I guarantee it.>
That is frankly not a rational stance, because it IS, in fact, an>>> impossibility.>
This is perfectly possible. Never engage in an offensive war and you will>>not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.>
That presumes that all offensive actions are not, in the same> instance, defensive actions.
Offensive actions != offensive war.
Offense and initiative are an important part of war. If you sit still> and let the enemy come to you on your home ground, you WILL lose the> war.>
And not only that, now YOUR innocent civilians will be killed.>
You find that alternative acceptable? I not only don't find it> acceptable, I do not find it rational at all.
I find the idea of offensive war immoral and repugnant. Offensive actions during a defensive war a completely different thing.
Does this mean that I believe we must be attacked or have war declared against us before we engage in a use of force? Most certainly. If the price of not engaging in pre-emptive warfare is a higher level of danger to our civilian population it is worth paying that price.
Trent Woodruff 15 April 2005 22:12:21 [ permanent link ]
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>>>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
I'm perfectly rational. I believe that the killing of innocent >>>>>civilians in offensive warfare is akin to murder. You don't. We won't >>>>>meet anywhere in the middle here, I guarantee it.
That is frankly not a rational stance, because it IS, in fact, an>>>> impossibility.
This is perfectly possible. Never engage in an offensive war and you will>>>not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.
That presumes that all offensive actions are not, in the same>> instance, defensive actions.
Offensive actions != offensive war.
I agree, but in the manner you used it, it is the same. For instance, after 9/11 we took the initiative to Afghanistan. It was an offensive action that was essentially a DEFENSIVE action at the same time (to defend against future recurrences).
We unfortunately killed and injured innocent civilians in Afghanistan.
So your statement that "never engage in an offensive war (action) and you will not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.
Offense and initiative are an important part of war. If you sit still>> and let the enemy come to you on your home ground, you WILL lose the>> war.>> And not only that, now YOUR innocent civilians will be killed.>> You find that alternative acceptable? I not only don't find it>> acceptable, I do not find it rational at all.
I find the idea of offensive war immoral and repugnant. Offensive actions>during a defensive war a completely different thing. >Does this mean that I believe we must be attacked or have war declared >against us before we engage in a use of force? Most certainly. If the price>of not engaging in pre-emptive warfare is a higher level of danger to our>civilian population it is worth paying that price.
We disagree on the specific instance of "must be attacked or have war declared against us" caveat, but other than that I think we pretty much agree. And even in that regard, I agree with it in MOST cases.
I happen to think a situation such as Israel was in with their Arab neighbors just before their war is one where pre-emptive actions are necessary.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff 15 April 2005 22:15:15 [ permanent link ]
Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>>Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
that the military is currently being used defensively.
As well, while I certainly agree with you that our actions against>> Iraq are in no way "defensive", do you honestly believe that our>> actions against Afghanistan weren't "defensive"?
I remain skeptical of our good intentions with regard to Afghanistan.
Oh, so do I. As far as I'm concerned, Pakistan was easily heavily involved, as well.
But good intentions or not, we were there primarily because of 9/11.
Certainly, al-Qaeda functioned in its lawless areas and the Taliban>turned out to be a less effective ally than we had hoped; but our>pursuit of al-Qaeda there was half-hearted at best and, in retrospect,>it seems we've done little beyond installing a UNOCAL-friendly regime>to control the immediate vicinity of Kabul.
I agree. But the bad results are caused by poor decision-making, NOT by the initial decision to go there. If that makes sense. In other words, just because we've fucked up while we're there, doesn't mean the initial decision to attack was wrong.
Do you believe that in order for a military action to be "defensive",>> it must take place "on your home court"? That's not rational.
No.
Ok, fair enough. We may be closer on this than I thought.
Doing what you're told doesn't require courage; it requires submission.
That's simply not true. Quite frankly, such a statement precisely>>>> demonstrates that you really don't understand what courage entails.
He's probably not in the military, and so he can't possibly comment >>>accurately on military matters...
Trev, stop putting words in my mouth. Just because you're so cowardly>> that you cannot possibly come up with a rational argument doesn't mean>> you have to make up outright lies about what I am saying.
Heh.
I'm confused. Care to explain? Was I wrong? I sure don't see an argument here, and I've certainly said no such thing about Aaron's lack of service in the military nor even implied it.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trevor Zion Bauknight 15 April 2005 22:57:33 [ permanent link ]
In article <42600410.5966728@news.cableone.net>, woodruffs@cableone.net (Trent Woodruff) wrote:
That's simply not true. Quite frankly, such a statement precisely> >>>> demonstrates that you really don't understand what courage entails.>
He's probably not in the military, and so he can't possibly comment > >>>accurately on military matters...>
Trev, stop putting words in my mouth. Just because you're so cowardly> >> that you cannot possibly come up with a rational argument doesn't mean> >> you have to make up outright lies about what I am saying.>
Heh.>
I'm confused. Care to explain? Was I wrong? I sure don't see an> argument here, and I've certainly said no such thing about Aaron's> lack of service in the military nor even implied it.
You've never gone that route in one of these conversations? I'm not talking about this particular thread, specifically, mind you.
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>>>>>Aaron Ginn was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>
I'm perfectly rational. I believe that the killing of innocent >>>>>>civilians in offensive warfare is akin to murder. You don't. We won't >>>>>>meet anywhere in the middle here, I guarantee it.>
That is frankly not a rational stance, because it IS, in fact, an>>>>> impossibility.>
This is perfectly possible. Never engage in an offensive war and you will>>>>not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.>
That presumes that all offensive actions are not, in the same>>> instance, defensive actions.>
Offensive actions != offensive war.>
I agree, but in the manner you used it, it is the same. For instance,> after 9/11 we took the initiative to Afghanistan. It was an offensive> action that was essentially a DEFENSIVE action at the same time (to> defend against future recurrences).
No, it was an offensive action in a defensive war. We had been attacked - thus our response was defensive.
We unfortunately killed and injured innocent civilians in Afghanistan.
...and while such casualties should be minimized they are unaviodable in any war. They are a justifiable cost in a defensive war. They are completely immoral and unethical in an offensive war.
So your statement that "never engage in an offensive war (action) and> you will not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.
War != action. Are you just trying to be obtuse?
Offense and initiative are an important part of war. If you sit still>>> and let the enemy come to you on your home ground, you WILL lose the>>> war.>>> And not only that, now YOUR innocent civilians will be killed.>>> You find that alternative acceptable? I not only don't find it>>> acceptable, I do not find it rational at all.>
I find the idea of offensive war immoral and repugnant. Offensive actions>>during a defensive war a completely different thing. >>Does this mean that I believe we must be attacked or have war declared >>against us before we engage in a use of force? Most certainly. If the price>>of not engaging in pre-emptive warfare is a higher level of danger to our>>civilian population it is worth paying that price.>
We disagree on the specific instance of "must be attacked or have war> declared against us" caveat, but other than that I think we pretty> much agree. And even in that regard, I agree with it in MOST cases.>
I happen to think a situation such as Israel was in with their Arab> neighbors just before their war is one where pre-emptive actions are> necessary.
J. Hugh Sullivan 16 April 2005 01:17:37 [ permanent link ]
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:13:43 GMT, Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote:
In article <425fb690.1115183@news1.news.adelphia.net>,> sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:>
I'm not about to do something wrong while working even if my boss tells >> >>>me to. Fortunately, I work for someone who wouldn't tell me to do >> >>>something immoral at work, and so I'm not faced with the necessity of >> >>>walking the hell out of here.>> >>
Wrong and immoral have not been the same thing in these discussions.>> >
Well, I'm using them in the same sense.>>
If you add acolumn of figures wrong, I suppose that's immoral. That's>> what I get from your generalization.>
I'm not sure how making mistakes and being inefficient even relate to >this thread about larger issues of right and wrong...>
-- >Trev
In your first paragraph above you mentioned "wrong" and "immoral". I don't agree they are synonyms by any stretch of the imagination and I was making the distinction.
J. Hugh Sullivan 16 April 2005 01:23:59 [ permanent link ]
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:15:16 GMT, Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote:
In article <425fb9c7.1938046@news1.news.adelphia.net>,> sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:>
So, when should we have quit in WWII? Where did defense stop and>> >> offense start? Didn't the offense start on 8 Dec 1941? Should we have>> >> done nothing other than ask the Japs to apologize?>> >
I believe that our involvement in WWII was determined prior to our>> >being attacked at Pearl Harbor.>>
There are certainly rumors to that effect. But if you are wrong you>> are also immoral by your definition. >
Please, by all means, take this absurd connection you've made in your >mind and run with it. Incorrect != immoral, and I'm certain that I've >never claimed otherwise.>
What should we have done about 9/11 in your opinion?>> >>>
Gone after the people responsible for carrying it out and those who >> >>>funded them.>> >>
Bravo Zulu! But you betray your opinion about "I support a >> >> standing military force for defensive purposes" by supporting>> >> offensive purposes.>> >
I don't consider retaliation against a hostile force that has already>> >attacked us offensive. See above re WWII, also.>>
That was always my philosophy when I was more agile - you can make any>> opponent mad enough to take the first swing then you can always claim>> self-defense. I love it.>
But the cowards shirked their responsibility and hid>> >> under mama's apron until the danger was over. >> >
Choosing to go to Canada to avoid participating>> >in an immoral war does not make one a coward (or not>> >a coward either, for that matter).>>
It does if they have accepted the privileges of living in this country>> and shirk the responsibilities. Only a coward would run from his>> legitimate responsibility.>
The keyword here is "legitimate." Participating>in an ill-advised immoral war is not a legitimate>responsibility.>
Btw, can I interest you in purchasing a "My>country, right or wrong!" bumper sticker, Hugh?>It's about 40 years old, but the glue's probably>still good on it.
By all your posts you are telling me that you can choose to break any laws you wish by. running off and then expect to be received like a hero when you return. That's in spite of the fact that you elected representatives to to do the work for you.
As far as the law is concerned there was no difference between draft dodging and refusing to pay your taxes.
You are the best example of a poor citizen I'm aware of.
Trent Woodruff 16 April 2005 02:03:53 [ permanent link ]
Zaphod Beeblebrox was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff wrote:
Ok, sure...I'll admit I could have worded that better. I think my>> meaning was pretty clear though, but just in case it wasn't..."If it>> was because they just didn't want to be in the military for fear of>> having to go to war, then they're more than likely cowards.">> Better?
Definitely. And while it IS likely that they're cowards I know of >several people who are committed pacifists and simply believe that all >wars were immoral
Absolutely.
(I don't think they're cowards, I just think they're unrealistic. <smile>)
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff 16 April 2005 02:09:14 [ permanent link ]
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
...and while such casualties should be minimized they are unaviodable in any>war. They are a justifiable cost in a defensive war. They are completely>immoral and unethical in an offensive war.
So your statement that "never engage in an offensive war (action) and>> you will not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.
War != action. Are you just trying to be obtuse?
Not at all. In fact, I was specifically trying to cover the situation. As far as killing/injuring civilians, there is absolutely NO difference between a war and an action. Both endanger innocent civilians in precisely the same manner.
Why would you think I was trying to be obtuse with that statement? When have I EVER tried to be obtuse (usually, I'm so specific as to be unnecessarily wordy, as in this case).
Offense and initiative are an important part of war. If you sit still>>>> and let the enemy come to you on your home ground, you WILL lose the>>>> war.>>>> And not only that, now YOUR innocent civilians will be killed.>>>> You find that alternative acceptable? I not only don't find it>>>> acceptable, I do not find it rational at all.
I find the idea of offensive war immoral and repugnant. Offensive actions>>>during a defensive war a completely different thing. >>>Does this mean that I believe we must be attacked or have war declared >>>against us before we engage in a use of force? Most certainly. If the price>>>of not engaging in pre-emptive warfare is a higher level of danger to our>>>civilian population it is worth paying that price.
We disagree on the specific instance of "must be attacked or have war>> declared against us" caveat, but other than that I think we pretty>> much agree. And even in that regard, I agree with it in MOST cases.>> I happen to think a situation such as Israel was in with their Arab>> neighbors just before their war is one where pre-emptive actions are>> necessary.
I do not. Initiation of force is immoral.
Like I said, that's the "agree to disagree" part. When imminent destruction of your nation is clear, you're dumb to not initiate action, in my opinion.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff 16 April 2005 02:11:55 [ permanent link ]
Trevor Zion Bauknight was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>> woodruffs@cableone.net (Trent Woodruff) wrote:
That's simply not true. Quite frankly, such a statement precisely>>>>>> demonstrates that you really don't understand what courage entails.
He's probably not in the military, and so he can't possibly comment >>>>>accurately on military matters...
Trev, stop putting words in my mouth. Just because you're so cowardly>>>> that you cannot possibly come up with a rational argument doesn't mean>>>> you have to make up outright lies about what I am saying.
Heh.
I'm confused. Care to explain? Was I wrong? I sure don't see an>> argument here, and I've certainly said no such thing about Aaron's>> lack of service in the military nor even implied it.
You've never gone that route in one of these conversations? I'm not >talking about this particular thread, specifically, mind you.
If I did, I would have been speaking specifically of a situation in which someone who hasn't served really WOULDN'T have the capability to understand (for instance, being in a war zone). There ARE certainly some situations where civilians simply don't have the experience necessary to understand the situation. Just like there are a plethora of situations that accountants, baseball players and mimes are put into which I simply would be unable to have a reasonable perspective.
It's a fact of lack of experience.
However, I do not believe I have ever "shouted anyone down" about something that wasn't clearly an aspect of a situation when they simply would not have that experience.
Please feel free to point out such a case if you have one in mind...I'd love to see it.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
:>Give one instance where I have done that in other than a farcical :>manner or you are a liar. : :If you're so senile that you can't remember your own words, that's :your problem...not mine.
Actually, I would submit that as long as he continues to post his ignorance to RSFC, it's everyone's problem who doesn't have him kill- filed.
-- Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"There ain't nothing wrong a few cold beers can't iron out in fact, you tell me just when and where, and I'll buy the first round"
:>Give one instance where I have done that in other than a farcical>:>manner or you are a liar.>:>:If you're so senile that you can't remember your own words, that's>:your problem...not mine.>
Actually, I would submit that as long as he continues to post his >ignorance to RSFC, it's everyone's problem who doesn't have him kill->filed.
Trevor Zion Bauknight 18 April 2005 17:37:14 [ permanent link ]
In article <42602ee6.311047@news1.news.adelphia.net>, sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
I'm not about to do something wrong while working even if my boss tells > >> >>>me to. Fortunately, I work for someone who wouldn't tell me to do > >> >>>something immoral at work, and so I'm not faced with the necessity of > >> >>>walking the hell out of here.> >> >>
Wrong and immoral have not been the same thing in these discussions.> >> >
Well, I'm using them in the same sense.> >>
If you add acolumn of figures wrong, I suppose that's immoral. That's> >> what I get from your generalization.> >
I'm not sure how making mistakes and being inefficient even relate to > >this thread about larger issues of right and wrong...> >
-- > >Trev>
In your first paragraph above you mentioned "wrong" and "immoral". I> don't agree they are synonyms by any stretch of the imagination
Wow. Better get yourself a new thesaurus.
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
Trevor Zion Bauknight 18 April 2005 17:48:27 [ permanent link ]
In article <42603919.2922241@news1.news.adelphia.net>, sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
The Constitution in every respect allows people to progress to the> limit of their ability.
It actually allows people to progress well beyond that. Ever heard of the Peter Principle? People are promoted to the level of their incompetence. Congratulations, #1.
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>
...and while such casualties should be minimized they are unaviodable in any>>war. They are a justifiable cost in a defensive war. They are completely>>immoral and unethical in an offensive war. >
So your statement that "never engage in an offensive war (action) and>>> you will not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.>
War != action. Are you just trying to be obtuse?>
Not at all. In fact, I was specifically trying to cover the> situation. As far as killing/injuring civilians, there is absolutely> NO difference between a war and an action. Both endanger innocent> civilians in precisely the same manner.
I agree that "as far as killing/injuring civilians, there is absolutely NO difference between a war and an action"
There is absolutely is a difference morally and ethically between an offensive war and an offensive action.
Why would you think I was trying to be obtuse with that statement?> When have I EVER tried to be obtuse (usually, I'm so specific as to be> unnecessarily wordy, as in this case).
Because you seem to refuse to see any difference between a "war" and an "action". As manslaughter and "murder one" are both the same from the perspective of the victim (still dead) but are different from a moral/ethical perspective.
Offense and initiative are an important part of war. If you sit still>>>>> and let the enemy come to you on your home ground, you WILL lose the>>>>> war.>>>>> And not only that, now YOUR innocent civilians will be killed.>>>>> You find that alternative acceptable? I not only don't find it>>>>> acceptable, I do not find it rational at all.>
I find the idea of offensive war immoral and repugnant. Offensive actions>>>>during a defensive war a completely different thing. >>>>Does this mean that I believe we must be attacked or have war declared >>>>against us before we engage in a use of force? Most certainly. If the price>>>>of not engaging in pre-emptive warfare is a higher level of danger to our>>>>civilian population it is worth paying that price.>
We disagree on the specific instance of "must be attacked or have war>>> declared against us" caveat, but other than that I think we pretty>>> much agree. And even in that regard, I agree with it in MOST cases.>>> I happen to think a situation such as Israel was in with their Arab>>> neighbors just before their war is one where pre-emptive actions are>>> necessary. >
I do not. Initiation of force is immoral.>
Like I said, that's the "agree to disagree" part. When imminent> destruction of your nation is clear, you're dumb to not initiate> action, in my opinion.
I think a nation that sacrifices its ideals and ethical base is already dead whether they win the war or not.
J. Hugh Sullivan 18 April 2005 18:32:01 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:48:27 GMT, Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote:
In article <42603919.2922241@news1.news.adelphia.net>,> sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:>
The Constitution in every respect allows people to progress to the>> limit of their ability.>
It actually allows people to progress well beyond that. Ever heard of >the Peter Principle? People are promoted to the level of their >incompetence. Congratulations, #1.>
-- >Trev
Fascinating. No one has ever told me that before and you were able to without even knowing me.
I'm like the farmer who refused to buy new farm equipment which the salesman said would double his productivity. He said he wasn'r farming half as well as he could now.
Trevor Zion Bauknight 18 April 2005 19:33:17 [ permanent link ]
In article <4263c40e.10762605@news1.news.adelphia.net>, sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
The Constitution in every respect allows people to progress to the> >> limit of their ability.> >
It actually allows people to progress well beyond that. Ever heard of > >the Peter Principle? People are promoted to the level of their > >incompetence. Congratulations, #1.>
Fascinating. No one has ever told me that before and you were able to> without even knowing me. >
I'm like the farmer who refused to buy new farm equipment which the> salesman said would double his productivity. He said he wasn'r farming> half as well as he could now.
What?
Time for the meds, Hugh.
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
Trent Woodruff 18 April 2005 20:34:21 [ permanent link ]
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
So your statement that "never engage in an offensive war (action) and>>>> you will not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.
War != action. Are you just trying to be obtuse?
Not at all. In fact, I was specifically trying to cover the>> situation. As far as killing/injuring civilians, there is absolutely>> NO difference between a war and an action. Both endanger innocent>> civilians in precisely the same manner.
I agree that "as far as killing/injuring civilians, there is absolutely>NO difference between a war and an action">There is absolutely is a difference morally and ethically between an>offensive war and an offensive action.
Context would appear to be the key in this case then, wouldn't it? We were discussing the killing of innocent civilians.
Why would you think I was trying to be obtuse with that statement?>> When have I EVER tried to be obtuse (usually, I'm so specific as to be>> unnecessarily wordy, as in this case).
Because you seem to refuse to see any difference between a "war" and an>"action".
I have no idea where you got that from. Please...point out where I'm refusing to see any such distinction? You're presumption of my guilt appears to be my only guilt.
Offense and initiative are an important part of war. If you sit still>>>>>> and let the enemy come to you on your home ground, you WILL lose the>>>>>> war.>>>>>> And not only that, now YOUR innocent civilians will be killed.>>>>>> You find that alternative acceptable? I not only don't find it>>>>>> acceptable, I do not find it rational at all.
I find the idea of offensive war immoral and repugnant. Offensive actions>>>>>during a defensive war a completely different thing. >>>>>Does this mean that I believe we must be attacked or have war declared >>>>>against us before we engage in a use of force? Most certainly. If the price>>>>>of not engaging in pre-emptive warfare is a higher level of danger to our>>>>>civilian population it is worth paying that price.
We disagree on the specific instance of "must be attacked or have war>>>> declared against us" caveat, but other than that I think we pretty>>>> much agree. And even in that regard, I agree with it in MOST cases.>>>> I happen to think a situation such as Israel was in with their Arab>>>> neighbors just before their war is one where pre-emptive actions are>>>> necessary.
I do not. Initiation of force is immoral.
Like I said, that's the "agree to disagree" part. When imminent>> destruction of your nation is clear, you're dumb to not initiate>> action, in my opinion.
I think a nation that sacrifices its ideals and ethical base is already dead>whether they win the war or not.
Like I said, that's the "agree to disagree" part.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Joel K. 'Jay' Furr 18 April 2005 21:21:51 [ permanent link ]
Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote in news:trev- 9DA8B9.13142418042005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com:
So anyway, what's your prediction for this fall's USC/Clempsun game?>
There won't be a brawl. Other than that, you can THROW OUT THE RECORD > BOOKS (TM).
I can't figure which team is more doomed -- Clempsun for having those godawful uniforms and Bowden Boy, or USC for basically being USC. Didn't Visor Boy say that no lawbreaking or bringing of the team into disrepute would be tolerated, period, full stop? Shouldn't about half the team have had their scholarships revoked by now?
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist 18 April 2005 21:38:10 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:06:41 +0000, aborgman wrote:
Like I said, that's the "agree to disagree" part. When imminent>> destruction of your nation is clear, you're dumb to not initiate>> action, in my opinion.>
I think a nation that sacrifices its ideals and ethical base is already dead> whether they win the war or not.
Oh, come on. Like most of your harder positions, this one is a worthy _ideal_ but not a good _practice_.
Conceive of a situation where a ton of bombers just flew over the Arctic from the Soviet Union. You have enough fighters to shoot them down (or at least enough to make any difference). They're 5 miles from the northern border. All indications are that they're going to drop a shitload of nukular bombs. You're telling me you don't shoot them down? (Remember, they haven't crossed the border yet. They COULD just be on a sightseeing mission to the edge of the border, and not planning on crossing!)
-- Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist Remove the woopitywoo, you moron.
Trevor Zion Bauknight 18 April 2005 21:44:09 [ permanent link ]
In article <Xns963C87F2AD589jfurrfurrsorg@216.168.3.44>, "Joel K. 'Jay' Furr" <jfurr-nospam@nospam-furrs.org> wrote:
So anyway, what's your prediction for this fall's USC/Clempsun game?> >
There won't be a brawl. Other than that, you can THROW OUT THE RECORD > > BOOKS (TM).>
I can't figure which team is more doomed -- Clempsun for having those > godawful uniforms and Bowden Boy, or USC for basically being USC. Didn't > Visor Boy say that no lawbreaking or bringing of the team into disrepute > would be tolerated, period, full stop? Shouldn't about half the team have > had their scholarships revoked by now?
Let's just say that the final two pieces are now in place for the re-remake of The Longest Yard.
Like I said, though, the silver lining to the Clemson uniform fiasco is the utter humiliation the other team will feel for losing to a bunch of guys dressed like that.
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
J. Hugh Sullivan 18 April 2005 21:59:52 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:36:23 -0000, "Joel K. 'Jay' Furr" <jfurr-nospam@nospam-furrs.org> wrote:
Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote in news:trev->20A45A.11331718042005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com:>
Time for the meds, Hugh.>
You know, you could just killfile him rather than arguing with him. He's >about as completely incorrigible as they come.
That's certainly what I expect all losers to do. That he has not may be a recommendation for him. At least he believes he can compete.
Once in a while he comes up with a positive comment which is far beyond the intellectual level of most people whose persuasion is akin to his. Most resort to negatives which is the second most ineffective response of all.
Trevor Zion Bauknight 18 April 2005 22:03:43 [ permanent link ]
In article <4263f401.23037566@news1.news.adelphia.net>, sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
Time for the meds, Hugh.> >
You know, you could just killfile him rather than arguing with him. He's > >about as completely incorrigible as they come.>
That's certainly what I expect all losers to do. That he has not may> be a recommendation for him. At least he believes he can compete.>
Once in a while he comes up with a positive comment which is far> beyond the intellectual level of most people whose persuasion is akin> to his. Most resort to negatives which is the second most ineffective> response of all.
Get off the tit.
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
J. Hugh Sullivan 18 April 2005 22:03:59 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:52:42 -0000, "Joel K. 'Jay' Furr" <jfurr-nospam@nospam-furrs.org> wrote:
Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote in>news:trev-86FDC5.12433718042005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com: >
You know, you could just killfile him rather than arguing with him. >>> He's about as completely incorrigible as they come.>>
Sometimes, I get the impression that you don't take RSFC all that >> seriously.>
Does Hugh ever post actual football content? Mostly he seems to post >right-wing dementia that Attila the Hun would find disquieting.
I'm not the one who normally starts these political discussions - I respond when it gets too liberal. If others honored the intended topic I would also.
Joel K. 'Jay' Furr 18 April 2005 22:09:08 [ permanent link ]
Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote in news:trev- F0ABEB.14034218042005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com:
Once in a while he comes up with a positive comment which is far>> beyond the intellectual level of most people whose persuasion is akin>> to his. Most resort to negatives which is the second most ineffective>> response of all.>
Get off the tit.
You know, you could just killfile him and then post an account of the last time you went to Swamp Guinea's. (Is it still open?)
Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>
So your statement that "never engage in an offensive war (action) and>>>>> you will not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.>
War != action. Are you just trying to be obtuse?>
Not at all. In fact, I was specifically trying to cover the>>> situation. As far as killing/injuring civilians, there is absolutely>>> NO difference between a war and an action. Both endanger innocent>>> civilians in precisely the same manner.>
I agree that "as far as killing/injuring civilians, there is absolutely>>NO difference between a war and an action">>There is absolutely is a difference morally and ethically between an>>offensive war and an offensive action.>
Context would appear to be the key in this case then, wouldn't it? We> were discussing the killing of innocent civilians.
Context isn't the key - the difference between an "action" (a subset of "war") and "war" (a superset of "action") is the key. An "action" inherits the justification of the "war". If a war is "defensive" offensive "actions" are justified. Vice versa is not justified. The superset does not inherit the justification of its members.
Why would you think I was trying to be obtuse with that statement?>>> When have I EVER tried to be obtuse (usually, I'm so specific as to be>>> unnecessarily wordy, as in this case).>
Because you seem to refuse to see any difference between a "war" and an>>"action".>
I have no idea where you got that from. Please...point out where I'm> refusing to see any such distinction? You're presumption of my guilt> appears to be my only guilt.
I said:
"Never engage in an offensive war and you will not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare"
An "offensive" action during a "defensive" war is not "offensive warfare".
I think a nation that sacrifices its ideals and ethical base is already dead>>whether they win the war or not.>
Like I said, that's the "agree to disagree" part.
Do you have any limits to this, or is any action (regardless of it being antithetical to the ideals and ethical base of the country) justified to save it?
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, Joel K. 'Jay' Furr:> Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote in> news:trev-86FDC5.12433718042005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com:
You know, you could just killfile him rather than arguing with him. >>> He's about as completely incorrigible as they come.>>
Sometimes, I get the impression that you don't take RSFC all that >> seriously.
Does Hugh ever post actual football content? Mostly he seems to post > right-wing dementia that Attila the Hun would find disquieting.
Hugh's a good bama fan, even quite rational for one of them, until you get him going on the problems that desegregating the team started.
So anyway, what's your prediction for this fall's USC/Clempsun game?
Violence.
rich
-- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Trent Woodruff 19 April 2005 03:46:21 [ permanent link ]
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>>>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
So your statement that "never engage in an offensive war (action) and>>>>>> you will not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.
War != action. Are you just trying to be obtuse?
Not at all. In fact, I was specifically trying to cover the>>>> situation. As far as killing/injuring civilians, there is absolutely>>>> NO difference between a war and an action. Both endanger innocent>>>> civilians in precisely the same manner.
I agree that "as far as killing/injuring civilians, there is absolutely>>>NO difference between a war and an action">>>There is absolutely is a difference morally and ethically between an>>>offensive war and an offensive action.
Context would appear to be the key in this case then, wouldn't it? We>> were discussing the killing of innocent civilians.
Context isn't the key - the difference between an "action" (a subset of>"war") and "war" (a superset of "action") is the key. An "action" inherits>the justification of the "war". If a war is "defensive" offensive "actions">are justified. Vice versa is not justified. The superset does not inherit >the justification of its members.
Incorrect, since the discussion was precisely the deaths of innocent civilians. Innocent civilians die just as readily in wars as they do in actions. This is fact and quite indisputable.
Why would you think I was trying to be obtuse with that statement?>>>> When have I EVER tried to be obtuse (usually, I'm so specific as to be>>>> unnecessarily wordy, as in this case).
Because you seem to refuse to see any difference between a "war" and an>>>"action".
I have no idea where you got that from. Please...point out where I'm>> refusing to see any such distinction? You're presumption of my guilt>> appears to be my only guilt.
I said:>"Never engage in an offensive war and you will not kill innocent civilians >in offensive warfare">An "offensive" action during a "defensive" war is not "offensive warfare".
Ok, you said this. Where is my guilt in what you said?
I think a nation that sacrifices its ideals and ethical base is already dead>>>whether they win the war or not.
Like I said, that's the "agree to disagree" part.
Do you have any limits to this, or is any action (regardless of it being>antithetical to the ideals and ethical base of the country) justified to>save it?
You misunderstand. My point is that a nation's defense of itself (even to the degree of taking offensive action rather than sitting tight on defense) does not necessarily run counter to it's ideals and ethical base. That is where we seem to be most disagreeing.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, Joel K. 'Jay' Furr:>> Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote in>> news:trev-86FDC5.12433718042005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com: >
You know, you could just killfile him rather than arguing with him. >>>> He's about as completely incorrigible as they come.>>>
Sometimes, I get the impression that you don't take RSFC all that >>> seriously.>
Does Hugh ever post actual football content? Mostly he seems to post >> right-wing dementia that Attila the Hun would find disquieting.>
Hugh's a good bama fan, even quite rational for one of them, until>you get him going on the problems that desegregating the team>started.
That's a bit far-fetched since I have never discussed the issue. I will mention one thing - I don't like showboating and that seems to be a mostly black thing.
J. Hugh Sullivan 19 April 2005 16:55:56 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:03:43 GMT, Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@sc.edu> wrote:
In article <4263f401.23037566@news1.news.adelphia.net>,> sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:>
Time for the meds, Hugh.>> >
You know, you could just killfile him rather than arguing with him. He's >> >about as completely incorrigible as they come.>>
That's certainly what I expect all losers to do. That he has not may>> be a recommendation for him. At least he believes he can compete.>>
Once in a while he comes up with a positive comment which is far>> beyond the intellectual level of most people whose persuasion is akin>> to his. Most resort to negatives which is the second most ineffective>> response of all.>
Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>>>>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>
So your statement that "never engage in an offensive war (action) and>>>>>>> you will not kill innocent civilians in offensive warfare.>
War != action. Are you just trying to be obtuse?>
Not at all. In fact, I was specifically trying to cover the>>>>> situation. As far as killing/injuring civilians, there is absolutely>>>>> NO difference between a war and an action. Both endanger innocent>>>>> civilians in precisely the same manner.>
I agree that "as far as killing/injuring civilians, there is absolutely>>>>NO difference between a war and an action">>>>There is absolutely is a difference morally and ethically between an>>>>offensive war and an offensive action.>
Context would appear to be the key in this case then, wouldn't it? We>>> were discussing the killing of innocent civilians.>
Context isn't the key - the difference between an "action" (a subset of>>"war") and "war" (a superset of "action") is the key. An "action" inherits>>the justification of the "war". If a war is "defensive" offensive "actions">>are justified. Vice versa is not justified. The superset does not inherit >>the justification of its members. >
Incorrect, since the discussion was precisely the deaths of innocent> civilians. Innocent civilians die just as readily in wars as they do> in actions. This is fact and quite indisputable.
Yes, they do. Their deaths are justifiable in an offensive action of a defensive war. They are not justifiable in an offensive war. That is my point.
Why would you think I was trying to be obtuse with that statement?>>>>> When have I EVER tried to be obtuse (usually, I'm so specific as to be>>>>> unnecessarily wordy, as in this case).>
Because you seem to refuse to see any difference between a "war" and an>>>>"action".>
I have no idea where you got that from. Please...point out where I'm>>> refusing to see any such distinction? You're presumption of my guilt>>> appears to be my only guilt.>
I said:>>"Never engage in an offensive war and you will not kill innocent civilians >>in offensive warfare">>An "offensive" action during a "defensive" war is not "offensive warfare".>
Ok, you said this. Where is my guilt in what you said?
You response was:
"That presumes that all offensive actions are not, in the same instance, defensive actions."
As if that had anything to do with my statement about offensive "war". This response is akin to me saying "sky is blue" and your response being "this presumes that red flowers aren't also yellow flowers" - it has nothing to do with what I stated.
I think a nation that sacrifices its ideals and ethical base is already dead>>>>whether they win the war or not.>
Like I said, that's the "agree to disagree" part.>
Do you have any limits to this, or is any action (regardless of it being>>antithetical to the ideals and ethical base of the country) justified to>>save it? >
You misunderstand. My point is that a nation's defense of itself> (even to the degree of taking offensive action rather than sitting> tight on defense) does not necessarily run counter to it's ideals and> ethical base. That is where we seem to be most disagreeing.
This is true. It runs counter to the United States ideals and ethical base. Other countries certainly have different ideals and ethical bases.
That's a bit far-fetched since I have never discussed the issue. I>will mention one thing - I don't like showboating and that seems to be>a mostly black thing.>
Which is why I pegged Sullivan as a fictional character.
Trent Woodruff 19 April 2005 20:35:34 [ permanent link ]
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:
Context isn't the key - the difference between an "action" (a subset of>>>"war") and "war" (a superset of "action") is the key. An "action" inherits>>>the justification of the "war". If a war is "defensive" offensive "actions">>>are justified. Vice versa is not justified. The superset does not inherit >>>the justification of its members.
Incorrect, since the discussion was precisely the deaths of innocent>> civilians. Innocent civilians die just as readily in wars as they do>> in actions. This is fact and quite indisputable.
Yes, they do. Their deaths are justifiable in an offensive action of a>defensive war. They are not justifiable in an offensive war. That is my>point.
Ok, I believe we've had a misunderstanding here. I've been working under the impression that you were saying any innocent civilian deaths were intolerable.
I don't believe I disagree with your point above at all.
Why would you think I was trying to be obtuse with that statement?>>>>>> When have I EVER tried to be obtuse (usually, I'm so specific as to be>>>>>> unnecessarily wordy, as in this case).
Because you seem to refuse to see any difference between a "war" and an>>>>>"action".
I have no idea where you got that from. Please...point out where I'm>>>> refusing to see any such distinction? You're presumption of my guilt>>>> appears to be my only guilt.
I said:>>>"Never engage in an offensive war and you will not kill innocent civilians >>>in offensive warfare">>>An "offensive" action during a "defensive" war is not "offensive warfare".
Ok, you said this. Where is my guilt in what you said?
You response was:>"That presumes that all offensive actions are not, in the same>instance, defensive actions.">As if that had anything to do with my statement about offensive "war". This>response is akin to me saying "sky is blue" and your response being "this>presumes that red flowers aren't also yellow flowers" - it has nothing to do>with what I stated.
We've got terminology problems here, probably related to my military service. The terms mean different things to you than they do to me. So I've been unintentionally confusing the issue. I apologize for that.
Certainly the two terms are different.
I think a nation that sacrifices its ideals and ethical base is already dead>>>>>whether they win the war or not.
Like I said, that's the "agree to disagree" part.
Do you have any limits to this, or is any action (regardless of it being>>>antithetical to the ideals and ethical base of the country) justified to>>>save it?
You misunderstand. My point is that a nation's defense of itself>> (even to the degree of taking offensive action rather than sitting>> tight on defense) does not necessarily run counter to it's ideals and>> ethical base. That is where we seem to be most disagreeing.
This is true. It runs counter to the United States ideals and ethical base.>Other countries certainly have different ideals and ethical bases.
How does it NECESSARILY do so? I don't see how the concept of "offensive war" necessarily runs coutner to the ideals of the United States.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to?
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>
Yes, they do. Their deaths are justifiable in an offensive action of a>>defensive war. They are not justifiable in an offensive war. That is my>>point. >
Ok, I believe we've had a misunderstanding here. I've been working> under the impression that you were saying any innocent civilian deaths> were intolerable.>
I don't believe I disagree with your point above at all.
Definitely a misunderstanding. Civilian deaths are a horrible thing, but are unavoidable in any war. They are justified in a "just" war.
Because you seem to refuse to see any difference between a "war" and an>>>>>>"action".>
I have no idea where you got that from. Please...point out where I'm>>>>> refusing to see any such distinction? You're presumption of my guilt>>>>> appears to be my only guilt.>
I said:>>>>"Never engage in an offensive war and you will not kill innocent civilians >>>>in offensive warfare">>>>An "offensive" action during a "defensive" war is not "offensive warfare".>
Ok, you said this. Where is my guilt in what you said?>
You response was:>>"That presumes that all offensive actions are not, in the same>>instance, defensive actions.">>As if that had anything to do with my statement about offensive "war". This>>response is akin to me saying "sky is blue" and your response being "this>>presumes that red flowers aren't also yellow flowers" - it has nothing to do>>with what I stated.>
We've got terminology problems here, probably related to my military> service. The terms mean different things to you than they do to me.> So I've been unintentionally confusing the issue. I apologize for> that.>
Certainly the two terms are different.
That difference is the key - offensive actions during a defensive war are expected and necessary. Offensive war is unethical and immoral.
I think a nation that sacrifices its ideals and ethical base is already dead>>>>>>whether they win the war or not.>
Like I said, that's the "agree to disagree" part.>
Do you have any limits to this, or is any action (regardless of it being>>>>antithetical to the ideals and ethical base of the country) justified to>>>>save it? >
You misunderstand. My point is that a nation's defense of itself>>> (even to the degree of taking offensive action rather than sitting>>> tight on defense) does not necessarily run counter to it's ideals and>>> ethical base. That is where we seem to be most disagreeing.>
This is true. It runs counter to the United States ideals and ethical base.>>Other countries certainly have different ideals and ethical bases.>
How does it NECESSARILY do so? I don't see how the concept of> "offensive war" necessarily runs coutner to the ideals of the United> States.>
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to?
It is against the ideals and ethical base of the United States to engage in an offensive war. Our Constitution specifically states "provide for the common defense" - this limits our federal government (and therefore our military) to its constitutionally mandated role of defense.
"defense is simply the stronger form of war, the one that makes the enemy's defeat more certain .. We maintain unequivocally that the form of war that we call defense not only offers greater probability of victory than attack, but its victories can attain the same proportions and results."
Trent Woodruff 20 April 2005 01:23:56 [ permanent link ]
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
This is true. It runs counter to the United States ideals and ethical base.>>>Other countries certainly have different ideals and ethical bases.
How does it NECESSARILY do so? I don't see how the concept of>> "offensive war" necessarily runs coutner to the ideals of the United>> States.>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to?
It is against the ideals and ethical base of the United States to engage in>an offensive war. Our Constitution specifically states "provide for the>common defense" - this limits our federal government (and therefore our>military) to its constitutionally mandated role of defense.
But YOUR definition of "defense" would not include "taking the offense in the face of imminent danger"...a definition that most people would not agree with.
And so in that case, it would be against the ideals in YOUR opinion, but in the general public's opinion it would not be against our ideals at all.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>Trent Woodruff <woodruffs@cableone.net> wrote:>>>><aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>
This is true. It runs counter to the United States ideals and ethical base.>>>>Other countries certainly have different ideals and ethical bases.>
How does it NECESSARILY do so? I don't see how the concept of>>> "offensive war" necessarily runs coutner to the ideals of the United>>> States.>>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to?>
It is against the ideals and ethical base of the United States to engage in>>an offensive war. Our Constitution specifically states "provide for the>>common defense" - this limits our federal government (and therefore our>>military) to its constitutionally mandated role of defense.>
But YOUR definition of "defense" would not include "taking the offense> in the face of imminent danger"...a definition that most people would> not agree with.>
And so in that case, it would be against the ideals in YOUR opinion,> but in the general public's opinion it would not be against our ideals> at all.
It is all opinion - of course, the only opinion that really matters is that of the Supreme Court - and they seem to be very silent on the subject.
Honestly from a moral perspective I can see allowing "taking the offense in the face of imminent danger" - but our government has proven so untrustworthy in terms of abusing that allowance that I can't in good conscience consider allowing them that power to be reasonable.
