Posted on 02/11/2003 5:57:19 PM PST by Razz
I'm sympathetic to someone like my grandfather, for example. A World War II veteran, he views Bloody Tuesday as a declaration of war greater than the attack on Pearl Harbor. I certainly don't deny that as an initiation of force, Bloody Tuesday as an event exceeds Pearl Harbor.
In my grandfather's day, the American psyche was such that the day after such an incident, there would be lines several blocks long in front of every military recruitment center in America. The assumption would have been that such an incident is inherently an act of war, and it would only be a matter of hours before Congress officially declared it. As such, the military would need as many people as possible. The only thing a responsible male over the age of 16 could have done was sign up immediately.
Indeed, in December of 1941, the only reason not to enlist was severe physical infirmity.
While I certainly don't agree with government warfare (it's immoral -- see my essay "State of Disunion 2003"), nor do I believe there's any reason to immediately enlist, I believe the reason we don't see this occurring is inherent in the callers to Republican talk radio.
I can't count the number of times since Bloody Tuesday that armchair generals have gibbered: "We need to go over there and -- !" "We need to send troops to -- !" "We need to make sure that -- !"
The operative word in all these statements is "we." As with Bill Clinton's unusual definition of "is," one needs to parse the words of the caller who uses "we."
When a caller says "we," what he really means is "anyone other than ME."
I admit that this makes my blood boil faster than almost anything else. The topic of discussion will always be about whatever war may be looming, and what the caller thinks "we" should be doing about it.
I have news for the caller: "we" aren't doing anything. YOU are sitting at home in your Barcalounger with your overweight behind growing ever larger. Other peoples' sons and daughters will be dying at the behest of the Dictator-in-Chief, not you. Simply because they're troops working for the FedGov doesn't make you part of them.
If you -- personally -- feel something needs to be done about Saddam Hussein, more power to you. You are perfectly free to buy a rifle and a plane ticket to Baghdad. If you -- personally -- want to start sniping at Hussein or his generals, join the various revolutionary groups that no doubt exist, or otherwise actively work to see that he starts pushing up the daisies as soon as possible, you have my full support.
If your only participation is to call Republican talk shows, post in Web sites, write in newsgroups, or otherwise tell everyone how you think other people need to die, then I call you what you are:
You're a coward.
You're a wussy, a mango, a scaredy-cat, a flicker, a shirker, a yeller dog, a pencatazo, a dingo, a caitiff, a poltroon, a capo, a yitney, a funk, a sop, a weathercock, a wimp, and a chicken.
You're a whining, lazy, pencil-necked, pantie-waisted, gutless, quiche-eating, egg-sucking, craven, disgusting little yellow-belly.
If you think something needs to be done to Saddam Hussein, then have the strength of your convictions. Pick up a gun, buy a plane ticket, and feel free to put your life on the line. If you're not willing to do that, then you're just a load of hot air, and we have enough of that in the world.
Actions talk, and cow patties walk. If you're one of the cow patties, please refrain from messing up the living room carpet any further -- by shutting the hell up!
(Excerpt) Read more at sierratimes.com ...
At the Airport?
Great point (/sarcasm ) What are governments for again?
I believe you are correct.
He most certainly has, unless you let him in there yourself. He has inititiated force
I agree with you completely. I don't think this author would though.
I am pretty sure "we" could get a planeload ready......:)
To quote this genius: No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.Nowhere does he advocate passivity.Sure am glad I'm not this POS's wife or kid depending on him to protect me from bad guys. "Well my little daughter, I just can't justify initiating any force against this guy who broke into your bedroom. He hasn't actually initiated any force against you yet, has he? Well then, I have to just sit here until he cuts your throat, but by God, I'll let him have it then!"
I'm sorry if you cannot differentiate between that and defending against someone else who has already initiated force against you or your family (or your neighbors, etc.)
Can we assume Mr. Stone hit a nerve?
And BTW, the coming war in Iraq is NOT an initiation of hostilities. It is a resumption of the war started by Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, and placed on hold when Saddam agreed to a cease fire agreement. He has violated the agreement, and now the war continues. Kinda like a pause button on the VCR.Please explain:
And I'm tired of you left wing morons continuing to push that lie!!!!!So, by posting an article written by someone else, containing his opinion (which I DO agree with) I have now become a "left wing moron"???
Sheep.
To that group, within which you have all indicated your inclusion, I say "Thank you."
If Mr. Stone was in Boot camp or on his way to Iraq he would have the time or means to write this?Are you boot camp or on your way to Iraq?
Did you miss the point of whom Mr. Stone was addressing?
So, by posting an article written by someone else, containing his opinion (which I DO agree with) I have now become a "left wing moron"???
Only if you agree with him.
Re-read this guy's position. Someone stealing my property or breaking into my home IS NOT attacking a human being, he's attacking property, and if I attack that person for doing so, in his world, I'm initiating the attack against a human being.
This guy is NOT a libertarian, as much as he'd like everyone to believe he is.
As to #3 and #4, I have no idea what you're talking about.
The Sierra Times staff?
I say the risk is worth it.
Unlike VietNam when every logical step was refused,rejeted or annulled (bringing home a lot of very disillusioned men), American fighters would come home victorious and ready to kick ass.
The PCness of the last 30 or so years has done sufficient damage to the male psyche that he's more afraid to take a righteous stand, or even lash out unthinkingly, and would rather think something through first.
Not that that is such a bad thing to do, but in an era where there are no absolutes, there can be no reaction.
That is why we lined up at recruiting offices in the past ... we had convictions about right and wrong, and when someone or something was wrong, we by God righted it.
Now, all anyone wants to do is 'get the facts'.
Y'shoulda' got the facts a long time ago on your mama's lap, your daddy's shoulder, your neighborhood church and the occasional woodpile.
We knew who we were and what we wanted.
I say today, there are those that know who we are and what we want, the knowledge of right and wrong with the wisdom to direct properly, and the conviction(s) to deal with advesarial forces against that in whatever manner seems to fit at the time.
I ussually lost every fight I tried to analyze (sp?) in school ... when it was reactionary, the fight was generally short and victorious.
I'm not one of those bad boys ... on the contrary, I was a little skinny kid with a funny name, easily picked on.
I learned strength and determination by doing my best to seriously hurt you if I thought you wanted to hurt me, and poking fun at me hurt.
America has been emasculated and it is the duty of every daddy in this country to teach his boys to fight and even to kill if need be.
And the mama's to teach their girls to be girls.
That's just the way it is.
Razz, you posted this tripe and then inserted "Well said" into your initial posting. That implies you agree with what was said by Mr. Stone ... so you get to take the heat that we can't directly inflict on Mr. Stone.
If you enter an agreement comment after you make a posting (or, to my mind, if you don't make any comment at all indicating your disagreement), that implies that your position is either identical to or close-enough-for-government-work to the individual who originally wrote the article. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Besides, this guy is a member of the One-Percent Party and deserves all of the contempt that we can give him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.