Should those who oppose the war against Iraq leave this site?

my squash ^ | 10/5/02 | Burkeman1

[Burkeman1]

Should all freepers who don't believe in the "war" against Iraq leave this site now? Is there room for dissent on this site?

[Miss Marple]

Hey, stick around for all I care. Just don't expect that you can post your stuff without rebuttal and/or criticism from a whole lot of people.

[MeekOneGOP]

_____________________________

[billhilly]

I do believe they left already.

[dennisw]

Yeah. You should leave.

[Texas_Jarhead]

no, of course not

that said, let's take out Saddam.

[fporretto]

Should all freepers who don't believe in the "war" against Iraq leave this site now?

Of course not.

I believe war is justified in this case, even though it would be pre-emptive. However, it's at times like these that it's most important to have people arguing the contrary case. Argument and counter-argument are always more important when the stakes are high -- and how much higher than war could they possibly get?

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[fire and forget]

Absolutely not. One of the better purposes this site can pursue is being a forum for those who're not yet privvy to all the facts, yet are intelligent enough to grasp them when they're spelled out clearly, and change their perspective in light of the facts. One thing I'd love would be a thread by and for all those whose world view has been changed by Free Republic and the many bright posters here.

Most people aren't beyond help. For those whose posts suggest otherwise, the Admins can be (or at least should be) trusted to decide whether they should remain here.

[cajungirl]

Well, let's see. If they want to play the weenie victim and prance off in a huff with Tommy D as their roll model, I say let them prance away with knotted knickers as fast as they can go. But if they have a reasonable argument, are civil in making it, and can support it, stay. I think this post is provocative and just asking to start a war on this thread. Now I shall walk away and get my morning coffee.

[Petronius]

Room for dissent remains, especially regarding the long-term implications of a pre-emptive strike. What if other nations follow our example? As we are the nation they are to emulate, is this not inevitable?

If India argues that Pakistan poses a far graver threat to them than Iraq does to us, how will we dissuade them from a pre-emtive strike of their own? "Do as we say, not as we do." Ditto for China and Taiwan, Russia and Chechnya, and Lord only knows who else . . .

Raising such questions is not treasonous; it's essential. Our policies do _not_ exist in a vacuum. We need to ask ourselves: What if other countries follow our lead? Such inquiries should be made regardless of the pros/cons of our impending war.

[piasa]

No, not unless they get banned by the site owner.

It's his call.

[JasonC]

Your freedom of speach is meant among other things to be useful to your country. If you see war with Iraq as inexpedient or see particular dangers in it, by all means tell us so and why, that we may be better prepared for whatever comes. If you think war with Iraq would be immoral, preach your sermon - but I'd advise temperately, because you will be climbing a wall of skepticism on the subject. If you think we ought to lose such a war and hope we do, sit on a landmine or move to France. If you just think war never solved anything, learn some history - and watch this carefully.

[Burkeman1]

Thanks- that is all I need- you have been here for about the same time as me. This is now a no Bush or GOP criticism site. Good night. It actually got tired a long time ago.

Burkeman1 (1999 poster) signing off for good.

The White Water days were great. This site was a great sounding board. Now it is little better than a GOP central party adjunct.

Later all.

Enjoy the mutual stroking of the Bush phallus.

[kcordell]

Should all freepers who don't believe in the "war" against Iraq leave this site now?

Absolutely not. The more you dissenters speak up the easier it will be to expose your lies and hypocricy.

[dennisw]

LOL! And don't let the screen door ............

[kcordell]

Enjoy the mutual stroking of the Bush phallus.

You seem to have President Bush confused with that traitor Clinton. Clinton's legacy is having his phallus stroked. Right monica?

[KingKongCobra]

Cheese.

[johnny7]

There was a cavalry trooper with Custer that had the name Burkeman.

Seems he was a little long-in-the-tooth and Custer assigned him to the pack train.

It saved his hair but he ended up shooting himself on his front porch a few years later.

Strange dude.

[metesky]

Hardly an Opus, which means you're pulling your own chain.

You'll be back, lurking until someone ticks you off enough to post again.

Funny, I never thought you were such a pushover.

So long for now.

[Petronius]

It seems your initial question was rhetorical. You received a couple of curt replies, but several (mine included) that affirmed - if not the necessity - certainly the acceptability of dissent.

Why is one curt reply "all you need" to silence yourself here - unless it was a foregone conclusion?.