1/20/2003: Violent "peace" protestors

option · 01-21-2003, 02:07 AM

I wish I could be gentlemanly and compromising about it. No, you really are wrong. It's quite simple: you tried to attribute something to my statements which is false: that I believe "any 'protestors' could ONLY have the purest possible motives." To this you add the subtly add the charge of "conspiracy theorist." I don't suppose you want me to repeat my earlier response (to which I notice you make no specific reply). Why compromise with that?

(And thanks to tw, for making the point better than I did.)

You go further, and now I feel so must I. It's grim, but we're not just discussing politics anymore. All this quiet patriotism is soaked in blood.

You "support" our troops? I doubt they feel your support.

You're implying that if the army doesn't support the lifestyle to which you're accustomed, that clears you of the responsibilities that go with your opinions. But I get the feeling you already know better. There is nothing more bloodthirsty than our legion of armchair warriors - patriotic citizens who have never even seriously considered the possibility of endangering themselves by getting too close to their own convictions. Too inconvenient. It's "not their job."

I know many of the people you "support." You seem as though you should know well enough already that by accepting this conflict you do the opposite of supporting them. Do you imagine that you turn your back on them by opposing sending them to the gulf? It's on the altar of this kind of credulousness that they'll be sacrificed (in small numbers or great, who can predict?), not to defend their country, because by every indication Iraq threatens us less than Saudi Arabia, and not to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, because then they would be on their way to North Korea or Pakistan, where nuclear weapons are indisputably known to exist (in the former in abrogation of an important disarmament treaty, and in the latter, in the hands of the single most likely people to use or lose them), but to further the interests of a western oil cartel.

01-21-2003, 02:07 AM	#11
option Layperson Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 13	No I wish I could be gentlemanly and compromising about it. No, you really are wrong. It's quite simple: you tried to attribute something to my statements which is false: that I believe "any 'protestors' could ONLY have the purest possible motives." To this you add the subtly add the charge of "conspiracy theorist." I don't suppose you want me to repeat my earlier response (to which I notice you make no specific reply). Why compromise with that? (And thanks to tw, for making the point better than I did.) You go further, and now I feel so must I. It's grim, but we're not just discussing politics anymore. All this quiet patriotism is soaked in blood. You "support" our troops? I doubt they feel your support. You're implying that if the army doesn't support the lifestyle to which you're accustomed, that clears you of the responsibilities that go with your opinions. But I get the feeling you already know better. There is nothing more bloodthirsty than our legion of armchair warriors - patriotic citizens who have never even seriously considered the possibility of endangering themselves by getting too close to their own convictions. Too inconvenient. It's "not their job." I know many of the people you "support." You seem as though you should know well enough already that by accepting this conflict you do the opposite of supporting them. Do you imagine that you turn your back on them by opposing sending them to the gulf? It's on the altar of this kind of credulousness that they'll be sacrificed (in small numbers or great, who can predict?), not to defend their country, because by every indication Iraq threatens us less than Saudi Arabia, and not to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, because then they would be on their way to North Korea or Pakistan, where nuclear weapons are indisputably known to exist (in the former in abrogation of an important disarmament treaty, and in the latter, in the hands of the single most likely people to use or lose them), but to further the interests of a western oil cartel. Last edited by option; 01-21-2003 at 02:12 AM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)