Response to FusionAddict

Kenny (Fusionaddict) sent a long and thoughtful response and posted it here. It is too respectful for me to deal with, so I gave it over to Mac. Let it be known that this is a discussion people. Mac will only respond to questions and actual points being made. All shamers and blamers will be turned over to me for good-natured beatings.
~Maugham
______________________________

I sincerely doubt that Doug literally meant for she and her family to be sprayed with a firehose. However, their conduct, in my opinion, has been more than disrespectful.

If you find his post he makes no bones about it. As a big fan of the late Dr. Thompson I understand the role of hyperbole. But ...well take a look for yourself. I obviously cannot speak to your personal experience of Doug. It seemed violent and cruel to me, and did not deal with any rationale.

She's a LIberal=She is stupid and bad= Hose her or gas her"

She has chosen to make her son out to be some sort of martyr, against what, by most accounts, would be his wishes. She neglects to mention that her son not only volunteered for the military, but he re-enlisted WHILE in Iraq and also volunteered to go on a rescue mission to save his fellow soldiers' lives when, as a mechanic, he had no obligation to do so.

Well her son is a hero, and brave to want to serve and re-enlist. I have close friends serving there myself. A great many of them hate this war but love their country and are willing to serve. The two are not exclusive.

One of the great tragedies of the Veitnam conflict was how soldiers were treated by those protesting the war. To protest an unjust war is a good thing, but to make men and women who serve under orders suffer in any way is just wrong. The legacy of that war, from both perspectives is ugly and painful.

Even if Cindy Sheehan's son disagreed, any American parent has the right to ask for accountability. While our President takes anothr of his many long vacations, men and women are dying with no exit strategy to get them home.

People are so eager to blame Bush for the deaths of soldiers that they overlook that, in the US, military service is all-volunteer. As a libertarian (which gets me no small amount of guff from Doug, let me tell you), my political philosophy emphasizes personal responsibility. Liberals in America are so eager to blame Bush for the deaths of soldiers that they overlook major facts, such as:

*The evidence on which Bush made his case for war was examined and endorsed not only by the Senate, but also by the previous administration. Al Gore himself, prior to Bush's election, referred to Hussein as a threat to America.

We now know this was based on falsified evidence. We all knew that Hussein was an enemy. That proves nothing. We also, many, suspected there were no WMD and that we had moved from a viable enemy who did attack us (Bin-Laden) to one who had not. Had the 9/11 attack been sponsored by Hussein that would have changed everything (note that even Liberals do not oppose the Afghan conflict).

You also know by now that Bush had, on the table, a plan and intention of attacking Iraq before 9/11. He does what he wants, and we pay the price, particularly our soldiers. Your point abt volunteerism is a good one. My friend Mike didn't like going, but he went knowing he had chosen to serve.

*The weapons of mass destruction claim was only one of 17 points that the US presented the UN. Under UN resolution 687, Hussein's manipulation of the inspections of his facilities ALONE would have resulted in military sanctions.

I remember this time well. The WMD was the lynchpin of their argument. Even as such, we do not attack every country that has such capabilities. The Bush doctrine (which his father does not endorse) is pre-emptive. Hussein did not attack us. He had no means even if he wanted.

He DID jerk the weapons inspectors around until the last period. Then he could not. I personally hold the Clinton administration highly (note that) accountible for not keeping Hussein's feet to the fire on weapons inspections through their 8 year term.

I would be interested in reviewing the other terms. I just remember Colin Powell's reaction to the report that it was "bullshit".

*When conservatives bring up the Kurds, liberals always give the standard answer..."with weapons we sold him." They leave out that US military contributions to Iraq accounted for less than 1.5% of total between 1973 and 2001. In fact, the biggest majority lies with China, the USSR, and France.

I am a Liberal. It doesn't matter that we sold them to Hussein any more than it really matters that we did business with Bin-Laden. What is relevant is what Hussein decided to do to the Jurds and what Bin-Laden decided to do to us. What happened to the Kurds was evil and Hussein is evil.

Sheehan has said, in a quote, that she wanted her son to desert from the military and make a run to Canada. She makes outrageous claims, like her ability to channel her son's spirit from heaven. Rather than memorializing her son's memory, she has tried to divert the spotlight onto herself time and time again. Might I ask why it is that Cindy Sheehan gets so much airtime, when the families of passed soldiers who SUPPORT our military actions in Iraq get none? It's not her opinion that I find upsetting, it's her media whoring. "We now have catering" indeed.

Frankly I cannot respond to this. You may be right for all I know. She may have other motives. I do know that the reason she gets as much media is because between 55 and 60 psercent of the American people are now questioning this fiasco. They want...no WE WANT Bush to be accountible for his lies, actions and the loss of life.

I have no doubt that Ms. Sheehan feels a great sense of loss, but she is also allowing herself to be a willing puppet for individuals and groups like MoveOn.org, CodePink, George Soros, Michael Moore, and Martin Sheen.

There are really good people in those groups. The smear and misnomer is that if you oppose the war and are a Liberal that you are somehow unpatriotic. That is as ridiculous as saying that Conservatives are fascists. Okay, a few are. A few Libs are off their rocker.

Michael Moore has, well done some good by opening up some real questions that need to be aired in a Democracy. On the other hand, I am a former journalist, and some of his methods and even the accuracy of some things he reports is highly questionable and sensationalistic. I'll take Mr. Moore with a pillar of salt.

MoveOn.org is an imprtant accountability group as ultra-conservatives try to circumvent long established legal and legislative processes. I would hope conservative groups would howl like crazy if some of the same tactics were used (and perhaps they have).

Morever, people like Sheen and groups like Sojourner's bring an important faith element to the mix. Yesterday I received this snippet.

Buried deep within the No Child Left Behind Act is a provision that requires public high schools to hand over students' private contact information to military recruiters. If a school does not comply, it risks losing vital federal education funds.

How do you, Kenny, as a Libertarian feel about the above?

What sticks in my craw is that people act as if we, meaning conservatives, are letting our religion act as an excuse for our political beliefs. This is not the case. I can come up with a secular, sociological argument for any challenge to my conservative beliefs. People also act as if, as a Christian, I am to be a doormat for anyone who wrongs me. I do not believe this is Biblical. When Christ told us to turn the other cheek, I do not believe he meant for us to do so in submission, but in defiance.

It's ironic, but I think that you can probably do just that. That was an earlier point I made about Social Darwinism. In a Gospel-less world, the Conservatiev agenda is logical. The powerful rule. To a certain extend Rome is a great example of this. I'm sure you have seen the Life of Brian...where they keep going on about all the Romans have done "and the aquaduct..."

But Gospel is subversive and counter-culture (Ellul and Berger). As such it always questions the dominant power structures, whether Liberal or Conservative or whatever. The Sermon on the Mount stands in defiance of both.

On turning the other cheek, I believ there IS more in thetext than normally seen. let me do some brush up.

What much of the liberal political hemisphere, especially those who consider themselves Christian, fail to realize is that there is a very real movement in the west to suppress religion in all its forms. Does it seem fair to you that children of any faith are not allowed in some schools to pray on their own? Or that children in France can be kicked out for wearing Muslim or Sikh headgear, such as turbans and scarves? Or that religious organizations in Canada can be charged with a hate crime if they criticize any minority group? It isn't just religious expression that is in danger, but freedom of speech as a whole.

I could not agree with you more.

I suppose a lot of the reason we gave so much of a backlash against anything that we perceive as dishonesty stems a lot from the fact that many of us feel that we have been lied to by, for example, the mass media. One need only look back at "Rathergate" for a very juicy example.

The media is no longer journalism. It's propaganda. It's bullshit both left and right. I quit as a journalist because I wasn;t allowed to do honest and real stories. It's all about ad revenues.

Regardless, most arguments against the war are Monday-morning quarterbacking at best, ostrich-head ignorance at worst. We are now in Iraq, and now, for good or ill, we have to succeed.

On a pragmatic level I have to kinda agree. We were lied to and theremust be accountability for that. BUT, we are there now.

I am not sure we can succeed. It was a bad plan to begin with and Rumsfeld did not send enough troops and they do not have the equipment they need. And no exit strategy.

Perfect. If you can figure out a way to succeed now would be a good time.

And when liberals say that we should simply cut and run, they fail to fully grasp what a potentially devastating blow that could mean to the region. Syria, Jordan, and Iran are restless as it is, what would happen if their next-door neighbor were to descend into an anarchic state, as the Sudan has? These nations, some of whom have long-standing feuds with each other, would cannibalize each other in a very short amount of time. Once that finishes, the survivors will turn their attention on Isreal, who may be the only ones keeping wahabist terrorism from spreading into Europe.

Again, I am a Liberal. I do not see a way. Just pulling out now would be a disaster.

People are going to hate America no matter what we do. If we had found WMDs in Iraq, we would have been blamed for letting him get them. If he had used them, we would have been blamed for the deaths of innocents, and if we had retaliated, we would have been accused of killing a gnat with a sledgehammer.

I disagree. Had we found WMD we might have retained some credibility. Bush Sr. was a coalition builder, his son is a destroyer in that regard. he took the good will of the world after 9/11 and smashed it with a sledgehammer. We are the world's only superpower. That implies some responsibility and accountibilty, no?
______________________________