Some Thoughts On War From Ron Kovic

[jasendorf]

THAT corner! Jeez...

 

[Said1]

THAT corner! Jeez...

Wow, does that pass for debate and discussion where you're from? "quick look over there, thems the facts".

 

[jasendorf]

Look! A birdie!

 

[Said1]

Look! A birdie!

I find that offensive. I demand an apology.

 

[jillian]

I find that offensive. I demand an apology.

I like that.

 

[musicman]

To quote President Bush I... there you go again...

That was actually President Reagan.

But, then again, from where I'm standing, theocracy is the desire of conservatives in the United States...

Then, perhaps you'd better stand somewhere else, where the light is better. The fundamental, bedrock basis of Christianity is man's free will; it is the entire point of the exercise known as life on earth. "Christian theocracy" is, then, a contradiction in terms. Or, have I missed calls for the execution of artists and cartoonists who have portrayed Christianity in a less than favorable light? No? Didn't think so.

 

[CSM]

1) It's John.

Fine, I'll use your given name.

2) Interesting that you and the President keep using the term "assimiliation." Just reinforces my belief that "your team" is the Borg.

We are indeed the Borg...resistance is futile!

3) I provided facts... 290,000 volunteer Iraqi soldiers and policemen... YOU then discounted them as nothing but a bunch of folk looking for a job without any basis. If you want to talk facts... talk facts. Ignoring the facts I present and then pretending that you're bringing something other than conjecture and innuendo doesn't really befit your stature.

Liar. I did not discount them though that is what you want ot believe. If you are going to try to convince me that every one of those 290,000 Iraqis joined up for altruistic motives I am going to call you a liar again. One more time...I have no doubt that some (NOT ALL) do what they do because they want some form of democracy/freedom/ etc. for Iraq. SOME do what they do for the money.

4) Want a fact? The 700 Club is still getting donations. Case closed.

Here is another fact: you are being an asshat.

This little reparte may have passed as " debate and/or discussion" on your old board but it all seems rather frivoulous to me. I will not waste my time with someone whose only interest is in doing what ever it takes (include twist words, ignore statements, leap to illogical conclusions and make generalizations) without any intent of serious discussion. Such people may find that sort of game entertaining...I do not. Let me know when you get serious.

 

[jasendorf]

How many of them are just looking for a job?

Don't tell me you didn't discount them. The quote's right there. Piss on my leg and tell me it's raining? I call BS. Your words are in black and white. And the innuendo is dripping with disdain for them. Perhaps I should have asked you to tell me how many you thought are "just looking for a job."

I wonder what you would say if someone said to you... "Americans aren't all that deserving of democracy... how many of their soldiers and police are just looking for a job?" You'd (rightly so) go ballistic. Why? Because it's a lame excuse for an argument against the deservedness of democracy. You say that you doubt they deserve it... I don't. I say that the forces being trained by our forces are proof of their deserving. If they're not, then why are our forces even bothering? What are we doing there if they're "just looking for a job?" I think that our mission to make them self-sufficient in their military and police force is just and meaningful.


If I'm wrong... tell me why you asked the question in the first place. Why did it have any relevance to our discussion.?

 

[Said1]

Don't tell me you didn't discount them. The quote's right there. Piss on my leg and tell me it's raining? I call BS. Your words are in black and white. And the innuendo is dripping with disdain for them. Perhaps I should have asked you to tell me how many you thought are "just looking for a job."

Dripping with disdain? You have some serious interpretation problems.

 

[CSM]

Don't tell me you didn't discount them. The quote's right there. Piss on my leg and tell me it's raining? I call BS. Your words are in black and white. And the innuendo is dripping with disdain for them. Perhaps I should have asked you to tell me how many you thought are "just looking for a job."

I wonder what you would say if someone said to you... "Americans aren't all that deserving of democracy... how many of their soldiers and police are just looking for a job?" You'd (rightly so) go ballistic. Why? Because it's a lame excuse for an argument against the deservedness of democracy. You say that you doubt they deserve it... I don't. I say that the forces being trained by our forces are proof of their deserving. If they're not, then why are our forces even bothering? What are we doing there if they're "just looking for a job?" I think that our mission to make them self-sufficient in their military and police force is just and meaningful.


If I'm wrong... tell me why you asked the question in the first place. Why did it have any relevance to our discussion.?

*sigh*

Are you going to listen to the explanation or are you going to spout off again?

IF you read what I said in reply to your comment that "290,000 Iraqis....say otherwise" you would understand that the point I was trying to make is that not ALL (one more time...NOT ALL) of those 290,000 Iraqiis are doing what they do because of altruistic motives. Heck, some of those 290,000 have even turned out to be terrorists. Now, if you want to turn that into a dismissal of Iraqi desire for freedom, yoiu missed the other statements I made about theocracy and perspectives on freedom etc (which provide even more ammo for your silly rhetoric)...then go ahead. The relevance to the discussion was you are using 290,000 individuals as proof of worthiness of democracy....I am pointing out that the number is something less than that if that is the SOLE visible proof (it is not).

As for the statement that Americans are not deserving of democracy, believe me, I have thought that more than once.

You are either deliberately picking things out of context to be argumentative, not reading my posts entirely or just being obstinate. I call BS on your BS and then some. The further we go into each post, the more I am convinced that my initial assessment of you is correct...you are indeed a troll and have no real interest in open discussion.

 

[CSM]

Dripping with disdain? You have some serious interpretation problems.

Amazing how folks can determine emotions over the internet!

I have not mastered that little trick yet. Probably too stupid because I am a conservative. Truth is, he wanted it to be dripping with disdain so he decided to interpret it that way.

 

[Said1]

Amazing how folks can determine emotions over the internet!

I have not mastered that little trick yet. Probably too stupid because I am a conservative. Truth is, he wanted it to be dripping with disdain so he decided to interpret it that way.

Well, at least you're not putting on airs and pretending to be all elitist like Darin.

We're really a manical cult here, it's time we told him.

 

[jasendorf]

Simply said, twice in 24 hours you've discounted someone's actions because they're paid money for those words or actions. Perhaps I'm seeing a trend where there isn't one. If that's the case, then that's on me. Even if I were to agree that "some" of "them" were in it "just for a job" it doesn't negate the fact that Iraqis (let's say a mere quarter of a million instead of 290,000 just to satisfy the "just looking for a job" qualifier you insist is important to the discussion) are volunteering to take up the fight for their freedom. I consider that a pretty darned good start towards a country earning its democracy.

Sure there are flaws with Iraq's train-wreck of Muslim factions. But, I disagree that anyone's religion, even Muslims, or that anyone's ethinic background, even Arabs, makes them inadmissible as a candidate for democracy.


-----

I'm doing my best to debate with your arguments in a reasonable manner. You continue to become befuddled when I pick apart your arguments and then claim that I'm trolling... if you don't want me to address the words you're using, use words that actually mean what you want them to mean instead of asking shaded questions which are filled with innuendo. All I can do is address the arguments you present. I have no ability to address the arguments you wish you had presented.

 

[jasendorf]

Amazing how folks can determine emotions over the internet!

I have not mastered that little trick yet. Probably too stupid because I am a conservative. Truth is, he wanted it to be dripping with disdain so he decided to interpret it that way.

If you refuse to say what you actually mean... expect people to not know what you actually mean. What is the use of a rhetorical question? You could have said, for example, "half of those forces are just looking for a job!" or "you know, I'd venture a guess that 5% of those are just looking for a job" or "with 40% unemployment in Iraq, almost all of them are just looking for a job!" But, you didn't.

You left it wide open to interpretation as to what you "really" meant by asking the question. I took it to mean, that (as you had already stated that you questioned whether Iraq (or any Muslim nation) "deserved" democracy) this was some type of confirmation of your previous assertion that they may not deserve democracy. If you meant something else by it, you should have said so.

 

[jasendorf]

We're really a manical cult here, it's time we told him.

As if I hadn't already figured it out! Duh!

 

[CSM]

Simply said, twice in 24 hours you've discounted someone's actions because they're paid money for those words or actions. Perhaps I'm seeing a trend where there isn't one. If that's the case, then that's on me. Even if I were to agree that "some" of "them" were in it "just for a job" it doesn't negate the fact that Iraqis (let's say a mere quarter of a million instead of 290,000 just to satisfy the "just looking for a job" qualifier you insist is important to the discussion) are volunteering to take up the fight for their freedom. I consider that a pretty darned good start towards a country earning its democracy.

True enough. I do believe that money is SOMETIMES (even "often") a major factor in one's decisions affecting employment and motivation for actions and positions taken. I do not believe it is the ONLY factor.


Sure there are flaws with Iraq's train-wreck of Muslim factions. But, I disagree that anyone's religion, even Muslims, or that anyone's ethinic background, even Arabs, makes them inadmissible as a candidate for democracy.

As individuals you may be correct. As a culture I think you are wrong. As a religion I think you are wrong....There is no latitude for democracy under Islam and there is no latitude for democracy under Arab culture....some examples (obviously more glaring) are "honor killings" and lack of women's rights.-----

I'm doing my best to debate with your arguments in a reasonable manner. You continue to become befuddled when I pick apart your arguments and then claim that I'm trolling... if you don't want me to address the words you're using, use words that actually mean what you want them to mean instead of asking shaded questions which are filled with innuendo. All I can do is address the arguments you present. I have no ability to address the arguments you wish you had presented.

I dont think you are. You are taking statements out of context, twisting the overall concept of the point I am making and even trying to present my my feelings about certain things when I have NOT stated my feelings on certain things.

The English I know how to read, write and comprehend is nothing like yours and since I am too lazy to learn yours, I guess I will stop trying to discuss things with you.

Obviously you are way to smart for me. I concede...you win and you wont hear another peep from me. Just to make sure, I am putting you on ignore.

 

[Said1]

As if I hadn't already figured it out! Duh!

Ha. Ha.

 

[jasendorf]

As individuals you may be correct. As a culture I think you are wrong. As a religion I think you are wrong....There is no latitude for democracy under Islam and there is no latitude for democracy under Arab culture....some examples (obviously more glaring) are "honor killings" and lack of women's rights.

I feel bad that you can't see this... maybe someone will quote it for you.

Some might say that duels (does democracy survive if the defining winner is the one who kills the other?) and slavery (actually written into our founding document) could have prevented Anglo Christians from creating a democracy also... while rocky (and very bloody at times) it's still worked better than any other form of government known to man.

I know that tolerance of other religions isn't particularly valued in conservative circles... particularly any tolerance for Islam... but I'm still not convinced that the male-dominated Arab world is incapable of sustaining a democracy. If I were to believe that, then I would also be believing that our men and women in Iraq are dying for an unattainable cause... and I just can't bring myself to do it.

 

[musicman]

Some might say that...slavery (actually written into our founding document) could have prevented Anglo Christians from creating a democracy also...

Just curious - do you consider the three-fifths compromise a white, male, arrogant assessment of the human worth of African slaves, or the opening salvo in the war AGAINST slavery in the infant nation?

I know that tolerance of other religions isn't particularly valued in conservative circles...

OK - you're nuts. Conservatives revere the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution establishes religious tolerance the like of which governmental systems in all of history have never dreamed of - before or since.

 

[jasendorf]

Just curious - do you consider the three-fifths compromise a white, male, arrogant assessment of the human worth of African slaves, or the opening salvo in the war AGAINST slavery in the infant nation?

Finally, an intelligent, thought-provoking question!

I think it is definitely the first salvo against the prevailing sentiment of white, male, arrogant assessment of the human worth of African slaves. Not really trying to have it both ways... really. I think that the prevailing sentiment among a vast majority of Americans at the time (North and South alike) was that slaves were wholly property. The framers actually fought long and hard to get to the point that they did and they should always be remember as those who fought the prevailing sentiment.

With that in mind, they didn't completely outlaw slavery either... which is why we're (in agreement with what others have said here) going to see a "theocratic-ish" "democratic-ish" government in Iraq. Not completely Sharia theocracy, but not completely secular democracy either.

OK - you're nuts. Conservatives revere the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution establishes religious tolerance the like of which governmental systems in all of history have never dreamed of - before or since.

Oh, I don't know... I will agree that conservatives value religious tolerance of Judeo-Christian diversity. But, I have yet to see some over-arching acceptance of Islam by conservatives in person.