I had written a long response to this, which, alas got lost due to
various computer anomalies. To sum up, I wrote:
- A good end does not justify questionable means.
- Even if we find WMD (and I think we will, in moderate quantaties),
it does not necessarily mean we should have gone in.
- The government f*cked up the diplomatic side of this thing horribly
and has alienated allies and the great majority of the world's
populace
- Joy, you should know better. My comment re: Robbins/Sarandon has
nothing to do with them or Holywood types and everything to do with
not censoring people in inappropriate contexts for their views (thus
I am equally if not more opposed to campuses cancelling speakers for
their political views).
- This government has done more to limit civil liberties than any
goovernment since at least Nixon and possibly Eisenhower. The Patriot
Act and maintaining a 'war footing' have allowed a great many people
to have their civil rights affected.
But really, it was much more eloquent (well, and verbose) in the lost
posting.
- David
--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "dne44" <dne_at_d...>
wrote:
> --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "toughslush"
> <meurtre_at_e...> wrote:
> > I'm curious, of course, as to whether any of you will be changing
> > your minds about this war if (when) we can definitely test the
> > potential WMD sites (labs, etc.) and prove that they were there
all
> > along (rather than being magically dissolved by pixie dust in the
> > early 90s). And if (when) we are able to comb through the
> > records and establish that Salman Pak and other terrorist
> > training camps in Iraq were used by Al Qaeda in their actions
> > against us. [For more, see my last blog.]
> >
> > But, no matter. I think it's possible to support the troops on a
> > certain level without approving of the war. But I suspect the
> > troops prefer to hear that we like what they are doing, feel more
> > "supported" by the demonstrations that use the flag and applaud
> > the troops versus those that do not.
> >
> > I also think there's something very troubling about having a
> > protest against the war in such a way that it diverts city
> resources
> > against basic security measures, and therefore the "war" against
> > terrorism. Some of the tactics employed by the leftists and
> > liberals in these actions--blocking traffic, throwing up on
> > buildings, looting excursions--keep other people from earning a
> > living during a recession. It's hugely destructive to working
> > people, and a drain on municipal resources.
> >
> > I do not concede that this administration is in any way against
> > free speech. I understand that it's hip to believe that, but I
> haven't
> > really seen any evidence to that effect.
> >
> > As far as Hollywood is concerned, David--aw, come on. The
> > entertainment industry is about 90% liberal-left, and those who
> > are "out" libertarians/conservatives are hurt by discriminatory
> > hiring practices all the damned time. The fact that some
> > entertainers have received a little blowback from saying largely
> > inane and silly things--in some cases, making statements that
> > amount to a "fuck you" to Middle America and add nothing to
> > public discourse--may be an overdue consciousness-raiser.
> >
> > If Jeanane Garofolo or Cheryl Crow make stupid remarks, and I
> > point out that they are stupid--much as I admire these ladies'
> > work--I'm not anti-free-speech. I'm anti-stupidity.
> >
> > --J
> >
> > --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "tschibasch"
> > <tschibasch_at_y...> wrote:
> > > I could not agree more with David. It is entirely possible to be
> > > AGAINST the war but SUPPORT the military. And it is our right
> > to
> > > demonstrate, if we so choose.
> > >
> > > And another thing: We are only too aware that Iraqis could
> > never
> > > demostrate against their own government. The fact that they
> > cannot and
> > > we can does not mean that we shouldn't.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "dne44"
> > <dne_at_d...> wrote:
> > > > Lenny-
> > > >
> > > > It's as simple as this: I respect and admire the courage,
> > dedication
> > > > and professionalism of our troops. However, I do not believe
> > in the
> > > > cause and timing of this war as outlined by our government,
> > and
> > > > therefore do not support the war. This does not strike me as
> > a self-
> > > > contradicting view in the least.
> > > >
> > > > When we see actions such as those taken by the president
> > of the
> > > > baseball hall of fame refusing to honor the movie Bull
> > Durham because
> > > > of the political views of Tim Ribbins and Susan Sarandon, it
> > strikes
> > > > me that more than ever people are losing the ability to be
> > rational
> > > > about what free speech is supposed to mean (and this is
> > true of both
> > > > sides; however, it is particularly worrisome on the right
since
> > the
> > > > government is taking an actively anti-free speech stand, at
> > least
> > > > rhetorically).
> > > >
> > > > - David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "7visions"
> > > > <7visions_at_p...> wrote:
> > > > > As for the " I Support the Troops" line being bandied
about,
> > it has
> > > > always
> > > > > been a bit of a cliche. This men and women have trained
> > for a long
> > > > time to
> > > > > be where they are. If you say, "I Support the Troops, but I
> > am
> > > > against what
> > > > > they are doing", just what are you actually saying? ..." I
> think
> > > > you are
> > > > > nice people, but I don't like soldiers". ?
> > > > >
Received on 2003-04-15 17:10:03
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: 2020-02-04 07:16:16 UTC