Law School Discussion

please, oh please, explain again how warmongering = "support for troops"

_BP_

  • ****
  • 2565
  • Think. Wait. Fast.
    • View Profile
Re: please, oh please, explain again how warmongering = "support for troops"
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2006, 07:45:59 AM »
It is not the Bushies and the Fox News crowd that have blundered or that have been exposed: their worldview is intact; they can tell themselves that time is on their side.

It is the rest of us - the educated, the knowledgeable, the humane who have been shown up for the moral cowards that we are. I remember thinking, when a little mite, "how could all those many germans have acquiesced?, all those suid-afrikaaners gone along?". It turns out the we - the cosmopolitan moderates and 'liberals' - are ourselves willing to acquiesce to, well, anything done in our name: torture, both in-house and outsourced; a repudiation of international conventions; an erosion of our civil liberties by executive order; quite literally nonsensical talk of "potential terrorists" and a "war on terror" and on it goes. How long did it take the ACLU and Amnesty and HRW and law faculties to mobilize in support of the prisoners at G'tmo? How effectively have they challenged the concept of the "enemy combatant?"

All countries have foundational myths that define and hold them together. Ours is that we are founded upon the concept of liberty at home and "malice toward none" abroad. These have been exposed as a hoax. Who, then, are we now? What is our foundational principle now?

Great post!

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: please, oh please, explain again how warmongering = "support for troops"
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2006, 09:23:12 AM »
you haven't seen the internet sites that I have

no doubt.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: please, oh please, explain again how warmongering = "support for troops"
« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2006, 09:24:44 AM »
It is not the Bushies and the Fox News crowd that have blundered or that have been exposed: their worldview is intact; they can tell themselves that time is on their side.

It is the rest of us - the educated, the knowledgeable, the humane who have been shown up for the moral cowards that we are. I remember thinking, when a little mite, "how could all those many germans have acquiesced?, all those suid-afrikaaners gone along?". It turns out the we - the cosmopolitan moderates and 'liberals' - are ourselves willing to acquiesce to, well, anything done in our name: torture, both in-house and outsourced; a repudiation of international conventions; an erosion of our civil liberties by executive order; quite literally nonsensical talk of "potential terrorists" and a "war on terror" and on it goes. How long did it take the ACLU and Amnesty and HRW and law faculties to mobilize in support of the prisoners at G'tmo? How effectively have they challenged the concept of the "enemy combatant?"

All countries have foundational myths that define and hold them together. Ours is that we are founded upon the concept of liberty at home and "malice toward none" abroad. These have been exposed as a hoax. Who, then, are we now? What is our foundational principle now?

Great post!

agreed.

good to see you around, bp.

_BP_

  • ****
  • 2565
  • Think. Wait. Fast.
    • View Profile
Re: please, oh please, explain again how warmongering = "support for troops"
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2006, 11:49:02 AM »
Thanks Jules ;)

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: please, oh please, explain again how warmongering = "support for troops"
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2006, 01:24:17 PM »
It is not the Bushies and the Fox News crowd that have blundered or that have been exposed: their worldview is intact; they can tell themselves that time is on their side.

It is the rest of us - the educated, the knowledgeable, the humane who have been shown up for the moral cowards that we are. I remember thinking, when a little mite, "how could all those many germans have acquiesced?, all those suid-afrikaaners gone along?". It turns out the we - the cosmopolitan moderates and 'liberals' - are ourselves willing to acquiesce to, well, anything done in our name: torture, both in-house and outsourced; a repudiation of international conventions; an erosion of our civil liberties by executive order; quite literally nonsensical talk of "potential terrorists" and a "war on terror" and on it goes. How long did it take the ACLU and Amnesty and HRW and law faculties to mobilize in support of the prisoners at G'tmo? How effectively have they challenged the concept of the "enemy combatant?"

All countries have foundational myths that define and hold them together. Ours is that we are founded upon the concept of liberty at home and "malice toward none" abroad. These have been exposed as a hoax. Who, then, are we now? What is our foundational principle now?

liberty at home and malice toward none...
that is very thoughtful...and nice. :)

part of the rest of us includes those who believe in a strong defense.

is it acquiesing to allow "global crescenting guerillas" to crash airplanes into new york city and not do anything about it?

what about allowing people to bomb hawaii and not do anything about it.

a "coward" does nothing...complains about others...has no solutions...and becomes complacent.
not a "moral coward" a flat out "coward."

________fill in the blank...

because "don't tread on me" means...we are not going to stand by and "do-nothing."

many "ad-libs" views just have not translated at the ballot box...
part of that is their "soft on defense" rhetoric.