Wednesday, June 22, 2005

for what it's worth

I did read the comment that very carefully (and thoughtfully) "cut and pasted" the talking points from Michael Moore's School of Raving Lunacy complete with mix and match out-of- context quotes and filled with all sorts of rhetorical fallacies. We've got "straw-men" we've got "Post hoc ergo propter hoc", we've got "causation vs correlation". But Wait! There's more if you act now on this very special offer, we will throw in a condescending blame-America-first attitude absolutely free! Supplies are limited, void where prohibited, not available in every state.

I am not sure how me saying "detaining enemy combatants is a necessary step" turned into a diatribe against the perceived and misquoted and intentionally misrepresented justifications for the war in Iraq, but hey, sometimes you say something and it triggers a different response in different people. For instance, I might start talking about midgets and someone could think I was talking about the Downing Street Memo, and even though I was speaking about short people, they hear something altogether different.
Either way, I am sure we all "support the troops," some of us do it by thanking them for doing an important and dangerous job and honoring their sacrifice, others of us support the troops by claiming that they were bamboozled and lied to and that they have sacrificed for nothing, that it is all a grand scheme that we have been manipulated into supporting by that evil genius (or is he a moron)....but hey---it's all the same.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Darin, stay away from implying that I tell soldiers anything just b/c I oppose the war in Iraq. Or associate anything I say with that greasy fatass Michael Moore. I donate a lot of time and money towards supporting our troops and feel deeply about the Iraq war. You talk about detaining people it easily leads to this. Don't try to make a bafoon out of me by using your talents in creative writing and $5 rhetoric to belittle any points I made. I thought you were interested in showing a position and discussing it. I gave you a good position. You should start one on cardinal baseball...I guess I have to leave this subject alone - - -
good luck

9:38 PM  
Blogger djobe said...

Jake--not trying to hurt your feelings or make a baffoon out of you, just pointing out that I wrote something about detaining war criminals for extended periods of time, (17 years to be exact) before trying and convicting them. You responded to that post with a point by point explanation of why you believe that our justifications for being in Iraq have changed and are therefore suspect. While that is an interesting point, I think it is moot, because from the onset it was explained on multiple occasions that there were lots and lots of reasons to take action in Iraq. Notice that nobody references the 17 UN resolutions that Saddam had not complied with? But they were one of the reasons why we went to Iraq. The fact that we are continually responding and modifying our goals is, I believe, a good thing. Tell me the truth: you found those quotes on some bush-bashing website, and found them to be very convinving.

I was in a particularly snotty mood yesterday, and apologize if my comments were rec'd in anything other than a light-hearted fashion. I am sure that you support the troops personally while simultaneously not supporting what they do in Iraq. As far as baseball, I don't really like baseball and have little to contribute to a discussion about baseball, sorry.

10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yea baseball sucks, I would not read this anymore if baseball was on here. Talk about a bad sport the worse one of all. I think George Carlin said it correctly with his stand up baseball vs. football. check it out.

2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing taken personal, Darin. I understand your point of view. Is it ironic, now a days, that if a person argues the principals of us going to Iraq, that he/she is labeled a liberal? The L word. Its a great strategy by conservatives to bring a negative tag on any democrat they want to go after. Its working well, because, Democrats are now 'progressive'.

If it were a democratic president that took us to Iraq,... with no military I know, but just picture it, ok... would peaceful objectors be labeled conservative? Me personally...I'm 50/50 on issues but you get a liberal implication when disagreeing with nearly everyone about the Iraq war.

Democrats dont like to talk about the UN resolutions because they cant be conspired. But it seems not even the conservatives like to bring that up much anymore, either. I guess a nuke program that tells the world to destroy their weapons, but, dont be surprised to learn we're inventing new ones doesnt get that much support like it used to.

And, those quotes did come from a 'progressive' site (www.thinkprogress.com). I bet most people find them convincing, at least those that like to hop that liberal bandwagon without studying the facts and getting a position. Thats why they spend the money and time to post them there. They're likely not just sticking up for what they believe in...you have to admit, it was interesting to read. You laid out a little spin, that cleaned the slate. I guess I'll give up on baseball here...

8:59 PM  
Blogger djobe said...

A rose by any other name....

Progressive--leftist--liberal--the name is fairly unimportant. After all, the definitions tend to be modified as time goes by.

Once again--you seem to be responding to me by answering a question that was never asked. I didn't say you were a liberal. Or a progressive.

But to respond to your question--"imagine a democratic president..."
To end the dictatorial and genocidal plans of Slobodan Milosevic, liberal Bill Clinton was willing to bomb downtown Belgrade, commit American forces to a major campaign without U.S. Senate approval, and bypass the United Nations altogether. Few accused him of fighting an illegal war, contravening U.N. protocols, or cowardly dropping bombs on civilians. Anyone who opposed was labeled a heartless "conservative."

The real irony in Iraq is that if President Bush were a liberal Democrat; if he were bombing a white Christian, politically clumsy fascist in the heart of Europe; if al Qaeda and its Islamist adherents were properly seen as eighth-century tormenters of humanists, women, homosexuals, non-Arabs, and non-Wahhabi believers; and if Iraq had become completely somnolent with the toppling of Saddam's statue, then the American people would have remained behind the effort to dismantle Islamic fundamentalism and create the foundations to ensure its permanent demise. But once the suicide murdering and bombing from Iraq began to dominate the news, then this administration, for historical reasons largely beyond its own control, had a very small reservoir of good will.

9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Darin, I didn't mean to come across like I thought you were labeling me anything. What I meant, whas, a general reference to today's society that I feel seems to label American citizens liberals on the basis that they oppose the war.
I don't think most Americans know much about any other religion but their own, much less Islamic radicals.

You made a good point about the dominate news coverage on the bloodshed in Iraq streets. Its ironic isn't it, that America is the richest country on earth, yet, most Americans don't care about others that are less fortunate here in our country, much less abroad. I seldom donate time to the Salvation Army or others to help the poor, sexually abused, etc. I doubt you, or the rest of America be conservative or liberal is much different. We care when they get killed, yet don't do anything to help them when they're alive. It appears to me, the biggest marketing item for Bush now is the progress we're making for these poor Iraqi people...building schools, women's rights, etc. Besides positive outcomes of our troops' sacrafice, why else would anyone give a damn about this now?

10:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home