|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
Pat Tilman--A hero? | from Phoenixkidd - Tuesday, November 14, 2006
accessed 2950 times Why is Pat Tilman so Loved? A Hero in my book is someone who performs superb acts of bravery and is defined by loyalty and honor.
I might create a big controversy on this one---BUT TILMAN IS NO HERO--He was just a soldier who happened to die in an accident. Why should be memorialized by a 8 foot statue and countless name plaques around the country? So what if he turned down a contract to play in the Cards to be a soldier, does that make him a hero? No a hero is someone who does something great and brave like Sergeant York in World War I, The men who fought at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Normandy Beach.
I think the reason why people like him so much is because of his looks--Pure and simple. Look at that jaw line--He defines a GI Joe in the minds of many--It's pure Man Love that crosses all sex*** boundaries and preferences--He reminds you of the GI Joe dolls you played with when you were a kid.
By the way that memorial statue outside of the new Cardinal Stadium in Phoenix, AZ looks more like an Indian Warrior, like Sitting Bull, or an angry Mohawk, fighting for a homeland under Attack from the White Man...Not some kid from middle class California.
Here's his link from the all authority--Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Rain Child
Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 16:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
More heros...and for what?
This story about single mother soldiers in Iraq brought tears.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15871419/
(reply to this comment)
| from repost
Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 13:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear friends,
I just took an action on the internet calling for a stop to the war in Iraq, and I thought you might be interested…
From the Ceasefire Campaign:
Dear friends,
The winds of political change are sweeping the United States. This month, the American people voted overwhelmingly to reject President Bush’s war in Iraq and the key architect of the war, US military chief Donald Rumsfeld, announced his resignation. This is the perfect time for a global public outcry to finally end this disastrous war.
To seize this opportunity, we are running an ad campaign in US and UK papers calling upon the US-led coalition to accept a larger role for the international community in finding a diplomatic solution, and a phased withdrawal of all its troops from Iraq. So far, almost 50,000 citizens from over 100 countries have signed on to the campaign – we need 100,000 signatures THIS WEEK so that our next round of ads can report a rising wave of global support. Please tell all your friends and family, and click below to the see the ad and endorse its call to action:
www.CeasefireCampaign.org
This is our chance to make sure the pressure of global public opinion is being felt by Coalition governments as they rethink their war in Iraq, pressing them to accept that they lack the legitimacy to bring stability and peace to the country, and that only a larger role for the international community in negotiating a political solution can stop the war.
We know why it’s so important to act. A shocking study released by Johns Hopkins University last month suggested that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq -- more than anyone thought -- and experts warn that the civil war is about to pass a point of no return. October was the worst month yet for civilian casualties, with death squads moving house to house. The killing could place Iraq alongside Darfur as one of the greatest human catastrophes of our new century.
We must not let that happen. And if we each act quickly this week, we can each play a role in stopping it.
We can reach our goal for this campaign by spreading the word. Please forward this email to as many of your friends and family as you can, and act now to add your voice to this urgent call for action. This may be our best chance for peace yet. Let’s take it.
With hope,
Ricken, Rachel, Paul, Tom, Amparo and the Ceasefire Campaign team
(reply to this comment)
| from Dissonant
Monday, November 20, 2006 - 16:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok Phoenixkidd, I was with you all the way up to this part
“I think the reason why people like him so much is because of his looks--Pure and simple. Look at that jaw line--He defines a GI Joe in the minds of many--It's pure Man Love that crosses all sex*** boundaries and preferences”
You see, he is far too manly for me to cross the sexual boundaries for. If I am going to cross Man Love boundaries it would be for a much “prettier” dude, like Davey Havok the singer for AFI. Now there’s a sexy bitch. I mean cmon, what dude wants a guy with a chin you could sharpen an axe on? Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure some guy would but don’t throw us all in the same box.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  From Oddman
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 00:20
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Erm, I beg to differ. Some men are beautiful as men. Not as pretty items that could cross gender with the change of dress, but as symbols of male masculinity. I'm not sexually attracted to these men, but I have to admit there is something about them that I totally envy. You just look at them and think "Damn, that's a man". George Clooney, Sean Connery, Matthew McConaughey, Clive Owen, Ken Watanabe, Yul Brynner, Denzel Washington, to name a few. Pat Tillman fits this profile.
Pretty boys like Orlando Bloom and Elijah Woods don't have the same qualities.
A few pretty boys with neutral qualities, Jude Law, Ewan McGreggor. These neutral dudes have a sort of boyish charm in their feminity. Same with Robert Redford.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Oddman
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 11:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, it's a fact. I don't find them sexually attractive, I find them sexy. It's different from drooling at a pin-up of Jessica Alba or Angelina Jolie. I'm not looking at abs, or biceps, it's rather a general aura. Some men just have a masculine presence so strong that I swear, even homophobic men can admire without feeling weird about it. The American man. They have a kind of quality in their appearance that draws you in. As a dude, I'd want to play a hand of poker, have a few strong drinks, and march off to battle with them. You can't help but look at them with a twinge of envy, and a whole lot of admiration. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 12:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is something I agree with. If women can find it socially acceptable to critique the beauty and sexual appeal of other women, then we men should enjoy the same social right without fear of breaking some absurd macho taboo or having our masculinity questioned. I accept that this is partly down to the neanderthal squad within our own gender who feel insecure about their own sexuality or feel threatened by the blurring of the gender divide.
In ancient, before the imposition of the judeo-christian moral standard, the definition of masculinity was always much more ambiguous. Real men were, if not outrightly bisexual, than at least a contrasting balance of both genders. In fact the measure of true manliness seems to me to have been much more about a balance of all things, including gender. IMO it's this stupid, pointless assertion of the stereotypical 'real man' that is responsible for our gender being consistently labelled a horde of rapacious, unrestrained apes, which is an assertion and affiliation I strongly resent. To me a real man accepts and professes his feminine side. THIS DOES NOT mean acting like a man trying to mimick a girl, being a wuss (an apparently 'feminine' atribute), or that which I loathe and despise practically above all forms of life: the metrosexual male. It does mean not being afraid to talk about subjects other than football, sex, cars or violent entertainment. It does mean not speaking like a mono-sylabic monkey. It does mean not treating women like objects. It does mean admitting (at least to yourself) that you can appreciate the merits of male form and/or sex appeal without being worried if you're gonna be seen as gay or not. I've gotten to the point now where I don't give a fuck if some one calls me gay or not. For that to be an insult would require me to be homophobic. In any case, my sexuality is one of the few things about which I am not insecure.
Maybe being part Oriental gives me a slightly different perspective on this. From studying Japanese and Chinese history, I understand that this attitude is much closer to the Oriental ideal of masculinity than the western one, although pre-christianised Roman society certainly had it. The Spartans had it; Samurai culture certainly had it, and it's hard to think of a more ultimately masculine culture than the last two; I've heard a couple of white people assert that all samurai were gay, which seems like such a simplistic evaluation. What is important to recognise is that male sexuality is a much more complicated and ambiguous issue, in the same manner as is female sexuality, which is much more acceptable to discuss, being that the Ape squad don't feel especially threatened by that. It is very far removed from the 'eat, drink, sleep, fuck' ideal imposed by the neanderthal, self-proclaimed guardians of masculinity.
To that list, however, I would add: Toshiro Mifune, Christian Bale, Tom Jane, Clint Eastwood (was he on your list?), James Coburn, Richard Harris, probably Charles Bronson as well.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 16:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think that sex and sexuality are entirely over-hyped in modern (especially Western) society. I take the view that sexual preference is about as defining of an individual as their preference in... say food, or music. I think that the "it's nature, we don't have a choice" argument is one that has largely been imposed by society, rather than chosen for its own merits. It is all a part of societies' attempts to restrict sex to its functional/procreational role, instead - and as so often happens when things are banned - it has only served to increase the appeal of it.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 13:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thumbs up for Toshiro Mifune, Richard Harris, James Coburn, Clint Eastwood. Not too sure about Bronson and Bale, but would add Henry Fonda and dare I forget, the never out of style Gregory Peck. I think Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana, and Sean Bean provide a -slightly evolved yet still in the classic vein- image of, the staunch and the beautiful.
Indeed, the Asian concept of masculinity was very different from what came with westernization and christianity. I still get the odd eyebrow up from male aquaintances when discussing the topic of male sexuality. I shrug. I don't want social norms telling me what I should think or say, in any area of my life. The cookie cutter belief that only women should think men are good looking is a poor defense scheme built by homophobic men. If I think of myself as a sexy and good looking male, why wouldn't I think of some other men as sexy and good looking too?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 11:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Every day I walk the streets here in Japan I lament at the whole metrosexual look fad. Wish we'd get more Cary Grant, Warren Beaty, types back in the cinemas. I think it's happening though. Brad Pitt is easing into the good looking masculine "man in his prime" image too. People today are totally misunderstanding the concept of male sexy. That said, back to Tillman, I suppose his look has to do with it too, but I think its more a matter of him having been famous before he went into action. Making random famous people heroes only contributes to the devaluation of the battlefield hero title. Not that every soldier isn't a hero in a way, but I feel more awe for the guy that saves his platoon, or takes out an enemy bastion single-handed, or dies defending a position. Think Alamo. I'm also not too hot on statues and plaques. I feel true heroes are better survived in peoples thoughts, lore, campfire stories.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 00:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Totally! I find a well tailored suit equally sexy to tight boxer briefs. Further, unlike the briefs, one doesn't need to worry about waistline or endowment, so I don't see why more men don't go for it. Very important that the suit is a well tailored fit. Nothing says "nice try, showoff" like an expensive suit worn the wrong size. My idea of male sexy is like Baxter mentioned, well rounded. A guy that can dress nice, sport a nice scent, and discuss literature or poetry without worrying that people will think he's gay. Fuck Arnie, Yul Brynner is tremendously masculine and male sexy in my book. The Magnificent seven, Classic! (But I still like the original Akira Kurosawa version better.)(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 00:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
You blokes still wallowing in the sexiness of your sex?
Speaking of which, I saw something rather hot today. In the middle of the city, a security guard in uniform was walking, and slung over his shoulder was a beautiful freshly pressed suit, not in plastic or anything. It's kind of unusual for people to wear full business suits here because it's very hot, so that attracted my attention. I was like..."nice. I get to see him in his uniform and imagine him in his suit."(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from geo
Monday, November 20, 2006 - 12:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
i have to say I agree with you mostly. Being in the army at the time I remember all the media hoopla about tilman i also remember the reaction most of my peers had to his death, which was "big fucking deal". He did, though, represent the majority of this wars casualties, being a white middle class male, the difference of course was his celebrity status.
his story is also interesting to me becuase I could related to his need to be a soldier, someone once said and i forget who that "every man thinks meanly of himself for not having become a soldier". I think this may be less common now days or maybe just less popular but there are people, men, who really have that desire to be a soldier and fight in a war. I think people who cant relate have difficulty understanding this. people always lie and wars are always supported by lies and partial truths, i think that outside of hollywood a perfect war, with perfect motivation and reasoning that would satisfy all pacifists completely, doesnt exist. but some men will always volunteer to go to war, to fight in war and maybe to die in war and someone else is always going to make a "big fucking deal" about it.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From geo
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 11:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
my point was that he did die with honor fighting in a war, just not anymore heroically then any other soldier. I think there are many heroes in war but being recognized for that heroism has more to do with luck and being in the right place at the right time. And I guess your not a real hero until they make a movie about you, so if your heroic actions arent showy enough to dazzle hollywood i guess your out of luck. There were 245 medal of honor awardies in vietnam but I dont think your average american could name a single one (forest gump doesnt count)...but well we all know sgt. york.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Rain Child
Monday, November 20, 2006 - 12:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Did the Professor get TP'd then?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From Oddman
Monday, November 20, 2006, 13:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh well, I'm still against the censorship, but I understand the social rule here. This being a site directed specifically at SG's (Many of whom are permanently traumatized) I can understand the need for content control, and appreciate the admins discretion. I don't think I read his comments that got him permanently blacklisted, but I trust the admins here wouldn't do so without a pretty good reason. Good thing he spouted nothing but moronic trash that wasn't generating constructive debate, so I'm not missing him. But what kind of hard-on does he have for us? Sheesh. Must be a very lonely dude.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Shaka
Monday, November 20, 2006, 14:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oddman, that fucker is a confirmed child abuser, he lost custody of his son cause he would beat him. He also got on here and blatantly defended sexual abuse saying the victims "kinda liked it". He's been in and out of mental hospitals for years and even TF won't associate with him cause he makes them look bad. His dad is a bigger nutcase than him, it runs in their family.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Monday, November 20, 2006, 14:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Didn't know that. Well then, he might as well be wearing a Bin Laden mask in Times square, or a Hitler outfit in Tel Aviv. Like I said, I trust the admins to reserve action for only situations that warrant it. As much as I oppose censorship of any sort, I detest child abusers just as much, so he has no sympathy from me. Too bad good men shelve their freedoms to live and die so assholes can breathe freedom. The paradox pisses me off.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Rain Child
Friday, November 24, 2006, 00:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well he doesn't seem to be any more populare over there than he is here:
Re: [FamilyYouth] Theory on over analyzing life per Buddhists philosophy
What a horrible, non-Christian reaction.
I certainly hope no one from the general public has joined this group, hoping to find a good sample of Jesus and His love. If they did, they certainly haven't seen it.
shem hakola wrote:
DUDE SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!!! GO AWAY... NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT WUT YOU HAVE TO SAY ANYWAYS...
Andrew F wrote:
Ooh, I see. So it's "rank pulling" now, is it?! Fair enough!
Just one question that puzzles me that you might be able to clear up....and I say this completely sincerely:
I'm puzzled that the post you chose to tell me that "everyone" has been telling me "enough already" (If there is a problem with my email box then I'll go to the actual site to see exactly HOW many people have been telling me enough already!) is the post where I actually deferred to the other person who (in my opinion) without logical or reasonable arguemnt to back up his "rebuke" as good as told me to shut up! To which I responded that I wasn't interested in arguing and said he could have his way!
Can you explain how, a deferal to another, in accordance with the best traditions of Christian practice, warrants ANOTHER rebuke from you as good as telling me to shut up again, followed by this "pulling of rank", when I simply politely give a logical reply!
I'm sorry, but the train-of-thought, as it were or the logical and sensible reasoning (Even God reasons with us and uses fair and reasonable, logical arguments to win us round to His way of thinking - Isaiah 1:18) behind this whole impasse' is unfortunately lost on me.
Can you please explain!
Thanks, God bless!
NTL wrote:
Andrew, if you have "missed" those responses from people telling you "enough already", then you are either blind, or you have a problem with your email client. I'm telling you this as a friend, but if you prefer I will tell you this as the moderator and owner of this newsgroup, because I'm tired of losing members (of this newsgroup) because of your long-winded, and sometimes questionable posts.
NTL
Andrew F wrote:
Sorry, but where did anyone say "enough already"! That must have been one of the posts that didn't reach my box!
I believe I'm quite entitled to respond to any post here that I feel an interest in responding to. Even more so when it's regarding one of my posts!
Isn't it a bit of a cop-out and shows a rather weak argument, when you have to resort to telling the other person that his posts (most of which have not been more than 5-10 lines long) are "enough already"!
Something about "heat" and "kitchen" springs to mind!
I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm quite sure that "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" falls within the duties and portfolio of anyone who wants to show themselves "approved unto God"! (2 timothy 2:15)
NTL wrote:
Andrew, sometimes I'm surprised to see how you don't "get it" when people say "Enough already!" You just go way over the deep end with lots of your posts and go off into details way too far to the point of confusing the mind.
NTL
Andrew F wrote:
You mean like the basics of grammar and punctuation?!
Confusing the scriptures?
Well if that's what you think I'm doing then I'm not going to bother or waste my time trying to change your mind! Have it your way!
"Jesse Rozario (Family Care)" wrote:
Andrew, what on earth is your point??? good god! Hey jak--good responses. Good responses amen!
Andrew, stop confusing the scriptures and just get back the basics, amen?
----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew F
To: FamilyYouth@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2006 4:32:58 PM
Subject: RE: [FamilyYouth] Theory on over analyzing life per Buddhists philosophy
I'm sure they weren't "thieves and robbers" in the sense that we think of a thief or robber. I doubt a Bhuddist would agree with saying that Buddha was a thief or a robber. You have to remember the context in which Jesus is saying this:
This is John chapter 10 and He is talking about the Good Shepherd (Himself) who giveth His life for the sheep! Jesus went through His whole life taking nothing and giving EVERYTHING, even His Flesh, Blood and Life for the sheep, in order that others may live...and lived a perfect life in order that He could be the unblemished Lamb of God, Worthy of taking on the sins of the world!
He owned nothing but the clothes on his back, which were even divvied up upon his death, and He "had no-where to lay his head!" (Mat 8:20)
No-one else before...or for that matter since...has lived up to such high moral, or Spiritual standards!
By comparison, "ALL that ever came before Me were thieves and robbers!!!" (John 10:8). Jesus made no distinction!
John Hakola wrote:
Mr. F,
You wrote, “I guess that would include Abraham, Moses, David, all the prophets...and the whole caboodle!”
Your guess is wrong regarding Abraham, Moses, David, and all the prophets. Abraham, Moses, David, and all the prophets do not fit the description of the “thieves and robbers” mentioned in John 10:6 and were not “thieves and robbers” according to Jesus or the Bible. Perhaps you are right regarding “the whole caboodle” because I do not know to whom you are referring.
Respectfully,
John
From: FamilyYouth@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:FamilyYouth @yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Andrew F
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 1:52 AM
To: FamilyYouth@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [FamilyYouth] Theory on over analyzing life per Buddhists philosophy
I guess that would include Abraham, Moses, David, all the prophets...and the whole (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Saturday, November 25, 2006, 06:22
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Change your e-mail, Rain. That's how I stopped junk e-mails with "stock tips" from coming to my mailbox.
If you move to AOL (which offers free e-mail to non-members), they actually have a program that will set up your address book and move your e-mails to your new address. So it's just like before.
While we're talking about it, I changed my e-mail address to SammyHg@aol.com. I wasn't sure if you were interested or not, as you can always e-mail me through this site.
Good God! They let the guy post offensive things about Buddhists, but they don't let you write an article about how rape is never a woman's fault? That's pretty sick. Yes, Rain, PLEASE change your e-mail. The farther away you are from those guys, the better. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 12:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
That would be unlike me. You see, I don't know you.
I don't know what kind of bad name would suit you best. Too many people in this world insult people mindlessly without as much as a thought as to whether that insult actually describes that person or not. That's one of my pet peeves.
When you tell me who you are, I'll see what I can come up with : o )(reply to this comment) |
| | from
Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 09:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think it's so that some of the american people can feel safe in a fantasy. It's just hollywood.
It's sad that he joined the army thinking he was saving the american people and thought Saddam (or believed Iraq had anything to do with it )was responsible for the attacks on the world trade centre.
Terrorism has actually escalted and mutiplied a hundred fold since this 'supposed war on terror' started.
(reply to this comment)
| From PopNFresh
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 09:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
A statue to Pat Tillman doesn't make me feel safe. It makes me feel proud of our men and women in uniform who serve during times of war.
On September 12th, 2001 most people were trying to make sense of what had just happened in our own country. Many of us were still trying to find out if our loved ones were safe. We weren't talking about attacking countries on day one or two. We were talking about how our nation had been attacked.
"It's sad that he joined the army thinking he was saving the american people and thought Saddam (or believed Iraq had anything to do with it )was responsible for the attacks on the world trade centre. "
He joined the Army before discussion of invading Iraq became public. He joined the Army to defend the country against those who attacked us. (reply to this comment) |
| | from a poem from the real heros
Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 09:30
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Eye to eye
- A poem from Palestine -
Look into my eyes
And tell me what you see.
You don't see a damn thing,
'cause you can't possibly relate to me.
You're blinded by our differences.
My life makes no sense to you.
I'm the persecuted Palestinian.
You're the American red, white and blue.
Each day you wake in tranquillity,
No fears to cross your eyes.
Each day I wake in gratitude,
Thanking God He let me rise.
You worry about your education
And the bills you have to pay.
I worry about my vulnerable life
And if I'll survive another day.
Your biggest fear is getting ticketed
As you cruise your Cadillac.
My fear is that the tank that just left
Will turn around and come back.
American, do you realize,
That the taxes that you pay
Feed the forces that traumatize
My every living day?
The bulldozers and the tanks,
The gases and the guns,
The bombs that fall outside my door,
All due to American funds.
Yet do you know the truth
Of where your money goes?
Do you let your media deceive your mind?
Is this a truth that no one knows?
You blame me for defending myself
Against the ways of Zionists.
I'm terrorized in my own land
And I'm the terrorist?
You think you know all about terrorism
But you don't know it the way I do,
So let me define the term for you,
And teach you what you thought you knew.
I've known terrorism for quite some time,
Fifty-five years and more.
It's the fruitless garden uprooted in my yard.
It's the bulldozer in front of my door.
Terrorism breathes the air I breathe.
It's the checkpoint on my way to school.
It's the curfew that jails me in my own home,
And the penalties of breaking that curfew rule.
Terrorism is the robbery of my land,
And the torture of my mother,
The imprisonment of my innocent father,
The bullet in my baby brother.
So American, don't tell me you know about
The things I feel and see.
I'm terrorized in my own land
And the blame is put on me.
But I will not rest, I shall never settle
For the injustice my people endure.
Palestine is our land and there we'll remain
Until the day our homeland is secure.
And if that time shall never come,
Then we will never see a day of peace.
I will not be thrown from my own home,
Nor will my fight for justice cease.
And if I am killed, it will be in Filasteen
It's written on my every breath.
So in your own patriotic words,
Give me liberty or give me death.
http://www.lutonmuslims.co.uk/eye2eye.htm
Mad World
by Gary Jules...
.
And I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which I'm dying
Are the best I've ever had
I find it hard to tell you
I find it hard to take
When people run in circles
Its a very, very...
MAD WORLD.......MAD WORLD........
.
.
.
(reply to this comment)
| From Oddman
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 09:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well written, and I agree with portions of it, but I think posting it as it's own article would have given the poem the attention it deserved, without being disrespectful to the sentiments of others. Don't get me wrong. I don't neccessarily support what is happening in Palestine, nor do I think PT is the hero of the decade. I just it's disrespectful to post this here. The injustice in Palestine has nothing to do with this soldier who fought and died in Iraq. Whether the war in Iraq or the struggle in Palestine are just or not are not central to the discussion on whether this soldier who lost his life too soon should be immortalized as a hero.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Phoenixkidd
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 12:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow that is great! I never knew he had a brother, and they did join after 9/11. It amazes me how duped we all were into thinking Sadam had the Weapons of Mass Destruction. We need to pull out soon but we are caught in the awful web of shiite (shit) versus Sunni crap. I tell you Iraq is a prime example of a country that is simply not ready for Democracy, they needed a strong dictator.
In other interesting news, check this article, the US puts it's initiative to the UN to ban vehichle mines but what about cluster bombs mines? China, Russia and the US refuse to sign the accord against them. We just don't want to loose anymore Hummers in combat!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061116/ts_nm/arms_mines_dc_1
(reply to this comment) |
| | From GetReal
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 17:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
hey Phoenixkidd even though the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea and bush fucked up Iraq even more then I though he would doesn't mean that any country in the world is not ready for democracy.Saying that Iraq "needs" a dictator is just wrong , not to mention its the oldest excuse in the book 4 dictatorship. everyone including Arabs are born with the right to be free to choose how they want to live, I'm sure you can agree with me on that.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Friday, November 17, 2006, 07:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
In my opinion, the problem is more one of time. The transition to democracy has seldom been either peaceful or quick. Consider the civil and revolutionary wars which have been fought by just about every Western democracy, and the current violence in Iraq begins to take perspective.
You're right, Iraq - like many other countries - is not currently prepared for democracy, but delaying the transition won't change this fact. The only way to make the adjustment is by doing so. It's as simple as that!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Friday, November 17, 2006, 17:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
I thought democracy means the people get to have a say in their own government, and not have it imposed on by someone else, i.e. random foreigners voting in some random foreign country? Is that such a novel concept?
Simple analogy.
If I want to clean my room, I'm going to clean it. You couldn't stop me if you tried. (Unless you are a totally hot woman stripping on my lap) On the other hand, if I don't feel like cleaning my room, I'm gonna do a terrible job if you try and force me. Even if my room really needs to be cleaned, I'll spend all day getting nothing done. And I'm going to get cross with you for realizing I had a messy room, and telling me to clean it. If you dare march into my room and start vacuuming, I'd be losing religion all over the show, telling you to quit bothering me while I rant on Movingon.
Democracy is not the only "right" way to do it. It just seems to work a lot better than other forms of government. But at the end of the day, if the people don't have the resolve to earn it; if the people don't starve and crave it; it just won't work. You can't force people to live in a democratic society any more than you can force people to live in a fascist, dictatorial, communist, or socialist society.
The people of Iraq did not make their move like the Indians, Black South Africans, or Filipinos did. As such, they were not yet ready for democracy. It CAN be too early to do the right thing, especially in politics.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, November 17, 2006, 17:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
I totally agree with you that democracy is not the only acceptable form of government (as some have said, it's the best of a bad lot... although I might debate even that) and also that often the best political solution is to do nothing.
That said, and in that context, I find your analogy to be weak. Using your example, I would say a more fitting scenario would be if someone had been cleaning your room for you and I sent them away and told you to clean your own room from now on. Yes, you would have difficulty doing so initially, and in fact your room would take a significant turn for the worse, however, in the long-term you would learn to clean your own room, and would eventually experience exactly what you described above - the ability to CHOOSE when and how to clean your room.
Of course it's a hard transition, but it's not going to get any easier by waiting - if anything it'll just become harder, as your habits and routines will simply be reinforced over time.
As I've said before, the vast majority of the violence in Iraq is not 'against' the Allied forces. Instead it is about factions positioning themselves for the inevitable time when the Allies leave Iraq. See, when all a population has known has been dictatorships, their natural inclination is to use violence to gain political power. That is where an external party can play a significant moderating role.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Friday, November 17, 2006, 18:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, the problem is that I'd always been cleaning my room. I wasn't a pro, but I cleaned it the way I liked. I put my books where I liked them. Then along came a wellwishing (or not so well wishing) neighbor, who gave me all sorts of advice. "You should wipe the table before vacuuming". He's right. Then he started cleaning my room himself. And god it was frusterating. He wanted to put my books where he thought they should be. Near the window, where he could borrow them when he liked. And this guy, he has to throw the room upside down once, before he starts cleaning. My room looks like Katrina came thrice (Cindy did come thrice, but that didn't mess my room k?). And now the dude is telling me, "look you can put your books where I want them, or else if I walk out now, your room will be a mess, and you'll have to clean it all by yourself. So you clean your room, I will supervise as long as you put your books where I want them.".
Gee thanks wellwishing friend, you barge into my room, throw the room upside down poltergeist style, then tell me it's too much of a mess for me to handle, so I should clean it the way you tell me to. Convenient for you, and not the way I want. Wait. Isn't this my room? Are you moving in?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, November 17, 2006, 18:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok, I think this analogy has worn out its usefulness.
The bottom line is that the Iraqi people have not had democracy, they have been ruled by a dictatorial regime. They therefore are not experienced in practicing democracy, however that doesn't have to deprive them of the opportunity to practice it.
On Thursday I was a a speech given by the Deputy Prime Minister of Kuwait, one of his remarks was that the majority of Iraqis are supportive of the Allied intervention to remove Saddam from power - it is only outside of Iraq that you will find the levels of hostility that the media so loves to report. Obviously it's impossible to make a blanket statement for any group as diverse, but I figure that someone like him is bound to have a bit of insight...(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Oddman
Friday, November 17, 2006, 18:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think they shouldn't have gone in to begin with. They should have waited until the Iraqi's got unified and started fighting Saddam, and began screaming for help, like Europe in WWII.
Now that they are in, they can't just pull out. That I understand. But it's getting to a point where it isn't really in the interests of the U.S to stay there either. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, three wars, nothing gained. Nothing achieved but destruction and anarchy. Seriously, the Pentagon needs a new research and strategy crew before taking on another war. A wise man learns from his mistakes, one who doesn't learn from multiple mistakes is just an idiot.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Saturday, November 18, 2006, 19:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Invasion itself was not the point of failure.Given the comparative ease of advance, and the fact that comparatively little coordinated or motivated resistance was offered by the Iraqi Army, It was obvious that the Iraqi people were moslty unhappy or at least unwilling to die for Saddam. The failure was in Occupation. Firstly, the imposition of a foreign interim government, legitimised only by the presence of armed force, was an issue that should have been dealt with considerably more sensitively than was the case in practice, especially in an Arab country with a history of colonialism. The Coalition has failed miserably in convincing the indegenous population that the asserted post-war government was anything more than an army of occupation.It did not, however, have to turn out that way. For example, there was a large enough expatriate Iraqi community living in Exile in the West, including a large number of the former social and intellectual elite from that country, who could have provided valuable guidance, or maybe even established an interim government in exile, to assume at least partial administration upon victory. Also, never trust soldiers with civil governance: they're never suited to it. It's difficult to teach soldiers cultural empathy, but even the initial use of force was excessive to say the least.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, November 20, 2006, 02:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
While I agree that there was plenty of scope for the interim government to have been better introduced, I don't think that doing so would have made even the slightest difference to the problems currently taking place.
The simple fact of the matter is that these sectarian rivalries had been brewing under the surface for deades - if not longer! The benefit of Saddam's ruthless regime - as with so many such tyrants - was to maintain a form of 'law and order' on the street. The draconian political oppression prevented warring factions from engaging each other, but it didn't their rivalries disappear.
So yes, they DID want Saddam out of the way, and yes his government was both inappropriate and oppressive - thus making it ripe for removal. But that doesn't mean that the transition is going to be easy or 'tidy' - that's just life, when controls are removed people try to push the boundaries as much as possible, and that typically means the 'worst' types grabbing as much power as they can... until they are eventually brought back into line by soceity. It's messy, but it's inevitable.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 12:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
The sectarian rivalry that I accept did exist in restraint under Saddam is not adequate cause for the complete chaos that now engulfs Iraq: What is at work here is a complete lack of social order, a society in which the very police and administrative bodies in existence have little or no actual meaning or influence over the life of individual Iraqis. This is an environment where people genuinely do not have any cause to respect the law, and where the police and national armed forces simply constitute another armed faction in a state governed and contested by armed factions. If the general population had sincere affiliation and respect for the government, the armed factionsv would have considerably reduced power and support, and would be marginalised in domestic politics, easily relegated to the rank of gangsters and thugs, instead of very genuine political forces with very real clout and power. In part this is a consequence to the state of affairs that inevitably follows any invasion of any country, however I do not think that it would have necessarily become as distressing a state of affairs as it had become. Had for instance the coalition spent more time and money rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq, instead of installing a conformist state government and securing the national assets, a lot of this could have been averted: in the absence of extreme deprivation, very few will feel the desire to turn to the gun. As I said, it was probably inevitable that some strife would follow the imposition of occupation, however it seems gratuitous that 655,000 Iraqis would be counted in the death toll. That figure must have been avoidable. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 13:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
What you fail to acknowledge is that this is a society which is built upon sectarian affiliations. These are family/clan identities and alliances which go back hundreds of years and which take precedence over pretty much all other affiliations. This has always been the case, even in government - there is no tradition of impartial government institutions, even under Saddam they were representing first and foremost a partisan regime.
As for the 655,000 - as I recall even the variance allowed by the organisation that produced that report was such as to make that number effectively meaningless.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Monday, November 20, 2006, 02:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think the key is that the Iraqi people were not ready. A better approach would have been to support the opposition, and allow them to start the process on their own. But now, if the U.S wants to pull out, they need a strong Iraqi leader to use fear and dictatorship if needed, to bring the country together and quell the violence. It's the same with Afghanistan. The streets were safer under archaic taliban rule. It's irresponsible for the U.S to march into these countries with no exit strategy.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Monday, November 20, 2006, 06:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
We probably won't agree on this, as we are looking through two different shades.
"they DID want Saddam out of the way, and yes his government was both inappropriate and oppressive - thus making it ripe for removal."
I don't think that's reason enough. I think these things however evil, should be left until the people make a move. By intervening when they did, the U.S stole any legitimacy the new Iraqi government could have had. By citing the phantom menace as reason for invasion, the U.S only weakened their position in the international community. Nothing good came from it. It was premature, and the "well, we went in too soon, and for the wrong reasons, but it had to be done sometime anyway" excuse doesn't cut it.
"The impact 'on the ground' of these sanctions was simply to further entrench the gap of power (and wealth) of the ruling minority over the general population. The sanctions were a god-send for Saddam"
I don't dispute that. But I also contend that one function of such sanctions is in fact, to cause the people to suffer to the point they choose to remove the cause of the suffering.
"But that doesn't mean that the transition is going to be easy or 'tidy' - that's just life, when controls are removed people try to push the boundaries as much as possible, and that typically means the 'worst' types grabbing as much power as they can... It's messy, but it's inevitable."
This I agree with.
Now Ne Oublie, what do you see as the best stratagem now? Taking into account the errors made so far, and the political landscape of Iraq today, how could the U.S come out with the least losses, not only in terms of troops, but international leverage etc. Do you think it is possible at all the obtain the new objectives, a democratic Iraq (not old objective, remove WMD threat). This is a bit of fantasy football I know, but what do you think?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, November 20, 2006, 09:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
"I don't think that's reason enough: "they DID want Saddam out of the way, and yes his government was both inappropriate and oppressive - thus making it ripe for removal.""
I agree, that in itself, that is not sufficient reason to intervene. However, taken in the context of the other points (and particularly in the context that I do not consider the 'first Gulf war' to have ended, on the basis that the defeated party did not abide by the terms dictated to it) I think that it provides an element of the final justification.
"Now Ne Oublie, what do you see as the best stratagem now?"
Aha! You are finally catching on to what it is that makes me a cynical commentator :D
I think that what needs to be done, is probably hard - if not impossible - to actually implement, as it relies more on attitudes and reactions than a significant change of strategy. Specifically, what I am talking about is a shift in focus from short-term to long-term goals - this will require less media hype every time a solider is killed (what kind of war, exactly, is it that they envision in which no one actually dies or gets hurt?) So, rather than question the overall strategy, and go into panic mode every time something bad happens, try to accept a more measured view.
This is necessary in order to avoid the inevitably negative long-term effects of a hasty withdrawal which leaves Iraq without some sort of functioning governmental and law enforcement structure.
A classic example of this is the former British Colonies, most of whom, although they fought long and hard for independence are in fact quite favourable towards the former British Empire. The buildings, railways, postal services, governmental structures and even militaries that they left behind still form the basis of these countries' infrastructures, and they recognise the fact that were it not for the Brits they wouldn't have them.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, November 20, 2006, 10:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree in principle.
U.S attempts to allow the locals to set up their own government have failed both in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's too easy for the locals to shrug off such a state as a defacto U.S puppet. On the other hand, both Afghanistan and Iraq seem to have accepted a certain level of oppression so long as they were given a commensurate level of protection. The key to a successful occupation, is support from the people. The U.S would have to spend money to baby the public. It would seem to me, that the U.S needs to first concentrate on securing key areas of the nation, and providing the public with a relatively safe daily life. Rather than let the Iraqis govern themselves, if the U.S declared martial law, and strictly governed certain cities, the Iraqis may see that life under U.S occupied territory is better than life elsewhere. When bombs are going off everywhere, and people are dying on both sides, most would choose to cling to their faith. When one is holed up in a desert cave while their neighbors are sitting at home watching Iraqi idol and shooting insurgents on their PS3 one must wonder if its all that worth fighting for. I think right now, the U.S needs to get the people thinking "hey, U.S.A style isn't that bad." (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Monday, November 20, 2006, 12:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
So true. The ancient Chinese could think in terms of centuries. In 1,500 years of Japan's history, only the Mongolians came close to invading Japan. (I don't consider the U.S occupation an invasion.) Nowadays, we give three months max before we start bitching about every little thing.
Privately, I'm selfish. I want to see some of the results of what I do now. I don't really care about the world two thousand years after my death.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Saturday, November 18, 2006, 22:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Invasion itself was the point of failure, because they did not have a good plan for what happened after they ousted Saddam. It was all premature. They gave everybody a reason to claim the new government isn't legit. I tend to think continued sanctions would have brought the Iraqi people to take action against Saddam possibly in the form of civil disobedience, or maybe a coup.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, November 20, 2006, 00:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Something on the news. I tend to agree with this.
I've edited it a bit to keep the comment short.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-kissinger19nov19,1,4993756.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true
By Doyle McManus, Times Staff Writer
November 19, 2006
Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger "I think that's reality. I think that was true from the beginning. Iraq is not a nation in the historic sense. The evolution of democracy … usually has to go through a phase in which a nation [is] born. And by attempting to skip that process, our valid goals were distorted into what we are now seeing."
Instead of holding elections and trying to build democratic institutions from the ground up, Kissinger said, the United States should focus on more limited goals: preventing the emergence of a "fundamentalist jihadist regime" in Baghdad and enlisting other countries to help stabilize Iraq.
He said he would have preferred a post-invasion policy that installed a strong Iraqi leader from the military or some other institution and deferred the development of democracy until later. "If we had done that right away, that might have been the best way to proceed," he said.
In Iraq, he said, elections, the centerpiece of the administration's political strategy, merely sharpened sectarian differences.
"It [was] a mistake to think that you can gain legitimacy primarily through the electoral process," he said.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Rain Child
Monday, November 20, 2006, 11:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
"news reports which would likely have gone unnoticed by the typical MovingOn member"
Well, that's extremely condescending. I think out of all the forums I frequent, "Movingoners" think and explore the widest range of topics in the most depth.
That's why I love you guys.
Okay, So I personally don't care to read about American tax cuts...but you do! You're a typical Movingoner! C'mon! Most of you are a smart bunch. And I'm trying.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Monday, November 20, 2006, 02:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
So Mr Kissinger says that "Iraq is not a nation in the historic sense" - well, what DOES he consider to be 'a nation in the historic sense'? I'll tell you one thing for sure, ask any Arab and they'll give you quite a different version!
I still have trouble reconciling the contradiction of those who say that the Allies would have been somehow less 'occupation-like', had they arrived with a ready-made government to install. Now in my view, THAT is exactly the line between a 'liberating' and an 'occupying' force. Liberation is to remove the current power, and allow the people to determine the replacement. Occupation is to bring in and empower your own replacement.
While I do agree that they could have better planned for the outcome of the liberation, what we have to recognise is that freedom is only so if it also allows people to 'fail' or make the 'wrong' choices. As such, the current trouble in Iraq is in fact evidence of the freedom the Iraqi people have been given.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Saturday, November 18, 2006, 20:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
"never trust soldiers with civil governance: they're never suited to it. It's difficult to teach soldiers cultural empathy"
Very well said. I think that was a large part of the problem. Soldiers are taught to go against their natures and become hardened. It's hard for them to reconnect with their compassionate sides when they're put in charge of governing the people they were trained to regard as the enemy.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From GetReal
Friday, November 17, 2006, 18:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
under what circumstance would you say that dictatorships are ok ? I happen to dislike dictators cause I feel that being told how to live sucks fat ball sacks ( I wonder why). And I disagree that Iraqis were free to choose Saddam. thats as stupid as saying kuwait wanted Saddam or Iraqis wanted America to invade . Some of them especially the Sunnis wanted him but the majority hated him and want him dead now , silence = survival not acceptance(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Friday, November 17, 2006, 18:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Silence = Acceptance for survival. The U.S government has recently been very authoritarian. Dictatorship in Democracy fleece. I suppose it's hard to see things clearly with wool over ones eyes, but seriously, there are times and occasions where dictatorship is not the worst choice. The majority of people are weak. Weak people need a leader. Weak people want a leader. People follow dictators for the same reasons they follow religion. Someone tells them what is ok and what is not.
My main point, which you seem to have missed, was "Every country must win her own freedoms and rights. A forced democracy is no democracy at all.".
If suddenly Bush proclaimed himself permanent president of the U.S.A and the military backed him, would the American people sit back and say, "oh, he's a dictator, we can't beat him without outside help"? I promise you the people would pick up their hunting rifles, airguns, axes, shovels and soap bars in socks to take him down. It's a matter of resolve. The Iraqi people didn't have the resolve to create a democratic country, which is why the confusion is only escalating. If the U.S.A left it a while longer, the Iraqi people would have been forced to make a unified front to oust Saddam.
Just my opinion.(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Sunday, November 19, 2006, 12:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
We've had a long history of democracy and freedom. If anyone threatened that no matter how big their force, the American people would fight to the death to protect that. But to compare us to Iraqis because they aren't fighting to bring democracy seems a little simplistic. We've been taught the values of democracy and individual freedom since we were children almost to the point of being brainwashed. We've been told to idolize heroes who died fighting for these freedoms since the Revolutionary War. Iraqis haven't. I don't know much about their history, but would bet a democracy or any kind of free society wasn't part of that. Why would they risk their lives for democracy when all they've known their whole lives is absolute rule and control? Maybe that's the way it should be for them, if that is how they want it.
Tyrannies, Oligarchies, and Dictatorships don't have to be bad forms of government as long as they have good leaders. However, they happen to be systems much more prone to corruption than democracies. I agree with you that if they want their freedom than they should fight for it. We should have let them the hell alone until we knew they were ready for liberation. I just think you're passing judgement too easily saying that if they really wanted to be free they would fight for it. Silence doesn't necessarily equal acceptance for survival. Maybe there were a great deal of people who wanted a democracy but because of their isolation or lack of resources they didn't think they had a chance. It's an incredibly difficult thing to mobilize the people and it takes a great leader to do so, especially in a region with so many tribal and religious conflicts. There's a lot of other factors for their acceptance that I don't think we're considering. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Sunday, November 19, 2006, 21:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
In South Africa, the average blacks were not given an adequate education. It was the sons of chiefs that became doctors, lawyers, and in the process, were able to receive a good education. These people saw the plight of their own people. They put their lives and careers on the line. They gave up their positions as the respectable blacks in their society. They did what they could to educate their people. And the people stood with them. The Indians allied themselves with the blacks. They didn't originally get along, and the Indians already had more perks than the blacks did, but they still unified. Protection from the people helped Nelson Mandela dodge the police until he decided it was better for the cause that he be arrested. Foreign countries gave them material aid. Gave them weapons.
Why can't we find Bin Laden now? Because he has the support of the people where he is hiding.
Yes, the Iraqis did not receive a quality education. But there were the exiles. There were the people that chose other countries to live in.
I agree with you AnnaH. It takes a goddamn good leader to mobilize the people. Saddam had it what it took to gain his position. He was a leader, and as such, it would take a man of greater caliber to depose him. But it would have been possible. He was oppressing the ethnic majority. Always a bad bad idea. His economy was suffering, yet he lived a lavish lifestyle. Always breeds anger among the people.
I still maintain that Silence = Acceptance (For immediate survival)
That acceptance may not be permanent, but the lack of action only indicates that the people are taking the course they feel provides them with the best chances of survival.
Consider that they did not care to start infighting when Saddam was there, and his army was definitely inferior to the U.S. Now the same uneducated Iraqis are fighting U.S troops, and fighting each other. The same uneducated Iraqis have a plan; a method in the madness. They don't want a government backed and influenced by the USA. They would prefer civil war to that. So if they had the ability, people power and guns to fight each other, why didn't they attempt to overthrow Saddam?
You are right that it is much harder to fight the government now. But it is never impossible.(reply to this comment) |
| | From GetReal
Friday, November 17, 2006, 19:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
oddman no I didn't miss your "main point" that a forced democracy is no democracy , I just didn't think it was worth resoponding to. I doubt the Germans were ready for democracy when they started WW2. The fact is it happend they are a democracy and it would be hard for you to find a German in his/her right mind that would want hitler back. Am I saying I think invading Iraq was not an insane Idea? NO. but what does that have to do with the need for a dictator. What does that have to do with democracy being the only form of government I would except?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Friday, November 17, 2006, 21:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Could it not be said that every country is in effect, a democracy? The people always allowed their current form of government to rise, and the people always have the power to change that. Should such democracy choose to allow or choose to elect a leader and award said leader dictatorial authority, would that make them any less democratic?
I frown on the idea that somehow people are not responsible for the state of their nation. They may not have been responsible for what happened yesterday, but they are responsible for what happens today.
Again, this could be another area where I will gain no sympathy, but that is my view. Probably perverse to some, but it's my opinion.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, November 18, 2006, 03:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ummm, NO! That's most certainly not the difference! Incidentally, there is hardly a country in the world which could be described as a pure democracy - Switzerland comes closest of any that I'm aware of. But ultimately the distinction is simply one of how decisions are made, and how leaders are appointed.
In a dictatorship, a 'strong man' is in power, and makes decisions as and how he chooses.
In a pure democracy, the population decide on matters by voting.
What most Western countries are is a republic, or representative democracy, where officials are democratically elected to govern the country on behalf of the electorate, and within the bounds of the nation's law or constitution.
Each of these options - along with just about every other form of government - is more or less equally prone to tyranny and oppression.(reply to this comment) |
| | From GetReal
Saturday, November 18, 2006, 10:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
you are right that even democracy is prone to tyranny, but the fact is there is much less of it in countries with free and fair elections. Free and fair elections by themself don't produce "pure democracy" as you would call it.Combine it with a free press , laws against persecution of minorities and a strong persicution and you have a better country . Would you mind telling mr why you think Switzerland is the closest thing to "pure democracy"? I agree with you that you can't really get perfect democracy. Most elected leaders answer to the people that brought them to power , not only the electorate but the companies that payed big bucks for election time adds and will want some thing in return .People are not perfect, they elect unperfect people, but IMO the mistakes made in a democraticly elected government are far fewer then with a retarded dictator .Amen?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, November 18, 2006, 16:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
"you are right that even democracy is prone to tyranny, but the fact is there is much less of it in countries with free and fair elections."
You seem to forget the many - even recent - examples of elected tyrants, from Hitler to Mugabe, Hamas to the Communist dictators. We have even had a number of instances in the UK lately where our non-elected House of Lords has argued against proposals from our elected House of Commons in order to protect individual civil liberties.
While it's a nice thought that democracy would be better than other forms of government, in the end it's all down to the individuals in power, and history would suggest that how they gain power doesn't significantly impact on their individual qualities.(reply to this comment) |
| | From GetReal
Saturday, November 18, 2006, 17:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I already said that free and fair elections don't produce democracy.Hitler , Mugabe and any "elected" Communist dictator didn't/don't rule democracticly. Just getting elected dosn't mean you can kill/incarcerate the opposition, thats not democracy . all the above mentioned didn't rule democraticly. Its the process of modern day democracy that is way better then any other form of government.Any way didn't you say at first that democracy was the only form of exceptable Government .Why did you say that if you think they are all the same.Could it be you just like to debate ,just like me PTL. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, November 19, 2006, 04:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'll humour you this time around, but in future please do try to pay attention to what's being said!
"Hitler , Mugabe and any "elected" Communist dictator didn't/don't rule democratically." They ruled as democratically - in most cases - as the typical representative democracy (republic), including the US. You have to be able to separate the process (democracy) from the policies. Some of the worst atrocities in history have been committed by 'the people', take the French Revolution for example - in my book mob rule is far worse than any megalomaniac dictator.
"Just getting elected dosn't mean you can kill/incarcerate the opposition, thats not democracy."
Even in a democracy only a percentage of the population have to actually support something. Once you count out those who didn't bother to vote, boycotted the election, weren't able to vote (for legitimate reasons, such as age) or who simply didn't properly understand the options. You can very easily end up with a vast majority of the population who are disenfranchised. A democracy similarly does not in itself prevent the use of fear or coercion to manipulate peoples' choices - and I'm not even talking about governments! It would be a brave individual who came onto this site and said they were voting for Bush - as such the discussions in here could very easily be described as coercive.
"Any way didn't you say at first that democracy was the only form of acceptable Government. Why did you say that if you think they are all the same."
Perhaps you missed my comment:
"From Ne Oublie
Friday, November 17, 2006, 17:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
I totally agree with you that democracy is not the only acceptable form of government (as some have said, it's the best of a bad lot... although I might debate even that) and also that often the best political solution is to do nothing."(reply to this comment) |
| | From GetReal
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 08:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
OMG you can't possibly compare Hitler and the USA, that is the weakest point in this thread IMO.Most of the coments you post are based on fact some what , this one is not. You can't even mention the USA and hitler in the same breath.
" A democracy similarly does not in itself prevent the use of fear or coercion to manipulate peoples' choices- and I'm not even talking about governments"
Well I am talking about Governments now and one of the key parts of of modern day Democracy is freedom of speech. You might not be popular for using your right (free speech) but you still have the right to speak freely. The same can not be said about Dictatorships including Hitler and Saddam even if you don't think that they were bad Dictators.
"It would be a brave individual who came onto this site and said they were voting for Bush - as such the discussions in here could very easily be described as coercive."
I don't agree with you at all. Some people might be afriad to post an opinon for fear of others opinions, I and quite a few people I know most certainly do not fall into that catagory.now if I knew that an opinion could get me banned from the site I might think twice.
Your profile says you live in England, would you ever consider changing your citizenship to Chinese or Iranian , not many people would. would you want your children to grow up in a dictatorship ? I don't think you would.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 13:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
And yet, a connection there is. Exactly the point my original post was making, that it is simply a matter of scale. Since you so strongly believe in freedom of speech, let me ask you a few questions.
In the name of free speech should society allow...
... someone to defend and promote pedophilia?
... someone to instruct others on the production of WMD?
... someone to incite racial, religious, homophobic, or any other hatred?
... someone to divulge state secrets?
... someone to proselytize for cults?
... someone to threaten another citizen?
... someone to shout down another's view with which they disagree?
... someone to reveal secrets about another?
... what if it was done as a joke?
... what if you didn't get the joke?
If you answered 'no' to any of the above (or many more), then we have established that you do not believe in free speech, and all that remains is to determine to what extent.(reply to this comment) |
| | From GetReal
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 14:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
in the name of freedom of speech yes to most except
someone to instruct others on the production of WMD
someone to divulge state secrets
because that could threaten my life and my country but as long as you are not hurting anyone you should you should be able to say what you want.obviously if you have to be aware that if you are in certain places you can't say some things. like defending and promoting pedophillia on Movingon would get you kicked out right away cause you are hurting victims of abuse. Use freedom in a reasonable way, but you can't limit free speech, ever. even if you don't like what is being said(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 14:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
GetReal, as I said above, the fact that you would limit some speech means that you do not believe in "free speech" - it is only a question of scale. Anything short of the ability to say what you want, where you want, and expect no negative repercussions for what you've said is not "free speech", it's that simple!
The fact of the matter is that there can never be 'free speech' without a recognition that people need to also take responsibility for what they say. Every society or group of people applies some sort of limitation on 'free speech' - in most cases those limitations are not even spoken, much less written, they are just 'understood' or 'implied'.
As such, apart from the physical ability to speak "free speech" is entirely a question of scale, and whether you happen to agree with the limitations that a given society imposes.(reply to this comment) |
| | From GetReal
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 14:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
"GetReal, as I said above, the fact that you would limit some speech means that you do not believe in "free speech"
Are you really sure about that? Like I said to oddman there is a difference between an opinion and a state secret or knowledge of how to make WMDs, but I do think there are things you should and should say to avoid hurting others.You would be half right if you said I don't think it would be right to say some things to some people. But freedom is a basic human right. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 14:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Or perhaps it takes a "smart person like" me to recognise that as I have repeatedly said, it is all a question of scale. You need to ask yourself who decides what a 'state secret' is, or what exactly a WMD is, and what should be described as teaching someone how to make them? Then ask yourself, if those same arguments could not be (or indeed have not been) used to justify other impositions, with which you do not agree.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 14:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Since aluminum tubing is a WMD or a component of -posing a danger grave enough to put tens of thousands of lives at risk by invading a independent sovereign nation against the UN, IAEA's, or the rest of the world's thoughts on the matter- One must be very careful when excersizing freedom of speech. I'll use this public space to solemnly swear on record, I don't know how to manufacture aluminum tubing.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From GetReal
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 15:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
1000 apologies for getting way of the topic.What are we discusing now ? IMO freedom of speech and democracy have been proved better then oppression and dictatorship . At least most people seem to think so . You may have point in that democracy is not the only way and there are some people that prefer dictatorship. But I prefer freedom and I would choose it even if I had to relive my life over 10 times.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 15:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Doubtless, dictatorships can more easily restrict freedoms, but that doesn't neccessarily mean democracy equals/guarantees freedom. In many democracies, the majority decides how to restrict the freedoms of the minorities. I've alluded to Thomas Jefferson's "Mob rule" quote before. Unfortunately, the majority is often complacent and easily manipulated with a little advertising. In some countries, the education and culture produces so many mindless zombies the majority don't even vote. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From GetReal
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 17:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
4 the second time "what is democracy but a dictatorship of the majority".
This discussion is getting lame real quickly.Do you really think Democracy is the same as dictatorship?Did you miss the latest century of world history? I don't think you are stupid person but it really bothers me that you have no respect for freedom. Honestly I don't see any point in continuing this . Best of luck to both you (reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 17:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't agree with Ne Oublie (assuming the "both" refers to Ne Oublie and Oddman) on everything, but I don't think either of us are being unreasonable on any account. I for one am not afraid to look at the same one object/topic from as many angles as I can find. I feel it's due to the fact that we respect and cherish freedom and democracy that we are able to look at everything including freedom itself, democracy itself, square in the eye, question it, study it, and understand it. You and I see freedom differently. I don't think I ever said anything to disrespect freedom, rather I've been shouting freedom as loudly as I can. Either you aren't reading my comments, or you choose to avoid the "danger" of questioning the things you consider "absolute". To me, that mindframe indicates that you are not free, but bound by chains bearing the insignia of your own mind. In any case, I feel the objective of these debates is not to convince or convert another, but to share views and opinions, thereby broadening our own horizons. I voice my opinions in hopes that they will be questioned.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 09:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
"You can't even mention the USA and hitler in the same breath"
Riiiiiight..... And why? Free country innit?
Whether the society in which you live awards you the "right" of free speech or not, you still are "able" to voice your opinions. Yes, it may cost one more to excersize that right/ability under a iron fisted dictatorship, but it doesn't lessen ones right/ability in the least bit. Far more threatening is the western propaganda and education systems that attempt to stunt ones growth in terms of free thought. I've found that your average European and average Asian tends to think of things on a much deeper level than your average American. So who is really oppressed? I've sat with soldiers in Zimbabwe, discussing Bobby Mugabe and politics. Yes, it could get you erased if you had a snitch among you, but their minds were too free to be bound in their own homes. Isn't it cowardice to blame ones inability to excersize freedom of speech on the chains of society? At the end of the day, the only chains binding you would be the chains in your mind. Freedom is something we all have. Nobody gives it to us. We have it by virtue of being human being. Sometimes, our freedoms are not reflected in our social rights. Even now, there are many freedoms we should enjoy, that society regulates. For instance, I say legalize Marijuana. I say give same sex couples more rights. More free trade. At times like these, we must endeavor to bring about those changes. The worst thing we could do is compare our own social rights with others who have less, and sit back satisfied. Every day, people are fighting all over the world for more social rights. Every day, there are those who attempt to reduce our social rights. While Americans are caught up in liberating other countries, and ensuring more rights for others, they are blind to the advancement of authoritarian rule in their own country. Shouldn't America worry about protecting/maintaining their own freedoms, before crusading the middle east? Set thine own house in order? Changes in America can set a trend in allied and friendly countries. I don't really appreciate it when Americans take their freedoms for granted. (reply to this comment) |
| | From GetReal
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 10:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Isn't it cowardice to blame ones inability to excersize freedom of speech on the chains of society?
At the end of the day, the only chains binding you would be the chains in your mind.
Freedom is something we all have."
No you are wrong, freedom is something you and I have but it is not some thing "we all" have. I think
speaking out in a Dictatorship is a brave thing to do but it isn't cowardice not to speak out.
"Shouldn't America worry about protecting/maintaining their own freedoms, before crusading the middle east?"
Yes, yes and yes again Bush was wrong for starting a war and losing, it made America look bad and Democracy
will probably not come to Iraq in the near future.What does that have to do Democracy?
"I don't really appreciate it when Americans take their freedoms for granted"
I don't take my freedom for granted that is why I vote. when I see a comment like "Iraq needs to be under a
dictator" I speak up.Democracy IS the best form of government. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 11:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Democracy IS the best form of government."
I disagree. Democracy is the better form of government, but whether it is the best of not, depends on the situation. Clearly, a hasty transition to democracy is not working in Iraq or Afghanistan. So called democracy in Thailand wasn't working, and democracy in Pakistan would be a major problem for the USA. Democracy doesn't appear to be working in USA presidential elections, and certain midterm elections. Democracy is the desirable form of government, but the people need to be responsible and ready for it. It may be the "best" form of government, but it certainly is not always the best for every situation.
"No you are wrong, freedom is something you and I have but it is not some thing "we all" have"
Again, we disagree. I'm not a free man because society tells me so. I am a free man because I am. I choose to be. I will defend it to the death. I protested Japan going to Iraq, and I protested Japan sending our Navy off on support missions. I protested stationing nuclear capable submarines in Japan. Did I make a difference? Probably not. But I do what I feel is best. I do what I feel is right. That makes me a free man.
"speaking out in a Dictatorship is a brave thing to do but it isn't cowardice not to speak out"
Acceptance for immediate survival. It isn't neccessarily cowardice to take the course that best preserves ones life. After all, we all wish to live and fight another day. But one who does nothing is not entitled to point the finger and whine. That is cowardice. Everyone is entitled to their own priorities, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. At some point one must prioritize between safety and freedom. Americans chose safety over freedom. Ironic coming from the "land of the free".
""Shouldn't America worry about protecting/maintaining their own freedoms, before crusading the middle east?""
If you read my comment, I was hinting at the various freedoms and "rights" US citizens are giving up, in the name of war against terror, and in the name of freedom and democracy. Terrorists torture so, so should we. Terrorists don't try POW's, so why should we. Tap our citizens, arrest them without warrants, and hold them without trials. Democracy strangling itself to death. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Oddman
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 14:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
It takes two extremes to keep the balance. I consider myself a odd breed in that I'm almost anarchist, but very capitalist as well.
If the world population was limited to Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, John Lennon, Bob Marley and the Dalai Lama, then it would be another story. (Although I think under such circumstances, each of these persons would take a turn and oppress the others. It's nature.)(reply to this comment) |
| | From an apostate
Friday, November 24, 2006, 15:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
dude,
mother theresa doesn't belong in the same breath as the other great 'movement' people mentioned above. she was, in my opinion, a theiving, lying, decietful, campaigning, albanian dwarf who decieved the general public and most of the world into believing she was a 'saintly' person.
i'm not denying your right to say she's the same, i'm merely trying to divulge my reasons for not agreeing with her classification alongside some of the worlds more influential individuals who have don't so much for peace, prosperity, and their fellow man. mother theresa did not(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Rain Child
Friday, November 24, 2006, 20:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
What ulterior motive could one have for spending their entire life amongst the poorest of the world's poor, in Calcutta, so far from her home, living amongst lepers, taking vows of poverty, chastity and humility, consistently turning down media opportunities to promote herself, instead focusing the attention on the plight of the people and what needs to be done. Much of the world didn't even know what 'untouchables' were before she and Gandhi came along. It's so typical to bash anyone who becomes famous fro doing something positive for the world.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From an apostate
Friday, November 24, 2006, 22:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
You don't like me? Oh my god!! what am i to do?
I don't care if you like me or not, and what I have or haven't done for the world is not really your concern. But as far as having the right to look down on mother Theresa, the fact that I'm alive and breathe gives me the right. Oh, and the ability to think for myself instead of believing whatever the media wants me to. I'm sorry you don't like me, but I'm sure we'll both live.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From vacuous
Sunday, November 19, 2006, 11:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights says it all:
'It is essential if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. In a democracy, it must be possible by political means to change a government without threatening the existance of the state (through entrenched separation of powers). Unless this possiblity exists, the state becomes identified with coercive might and the role of law within the state is emptied of moral content, for the State cannot be conceived in terms of force alone.'
This explains why "the mob" had to resort to violence in the french revolution.
It also importand to note that it is a lot harder and much more costly in terms of human life (with the era of modern surveillance and weaponry) to challenge a state with force. Democracy gives citizens the ability to hold the government to account and challenge the state without sacrificing ones own life.
What you are saying is sort of confusing in that on the one hand you express distain for the actions of the mob during the french revolution and on the other suggest that people should rise up themselves against dictators.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, November 20, 2006, 11:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I feel if someone isn't prepared to sacrifice his/her own life for the sake of freedom, he/she doesn't really deserve it. It's so common for people now to do nothing and only whine about what they have not. "Oh, boohoo bush is a bad president. But I'm not responsible, I didn't vote at all".
"It also importand to note that it is a lot harder and much more costly in terms of human life (with the era of modern surveillance and weaponry) to challenge a state with force."
I agree Vacuous, but we must also remember that the "state" is nothing without the people. There is no Army without soldiers. At the end of the day, the majority of soldiers do not want to excersize force against the unarmed civilian masses. The key to a healthy democracy is education. If the people have knowledge and a firm will, no army can stop the tide of democratic change, whether it is supported by the state or not.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Monday, November 20, 2006, 12:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
"if someone isn't prepared to sacrifice his/her own life for the sake of freedom, he/she doesn't really deserve it"
I disagree with that completely.
It's not the common people's fault if some awful regime has taken over and they lay low to stay alive. They still deserve freedom even if they, quite rightly, value their lives above all else.
That's like saying someone who's being held against their will doesn't deserve freedom if they don't fight for it. People have to put their lives and their families first, but (and this comes back to the previous discussion) freedom is a basic human right. if they didn't do what they had to do (i.e.nothing) to stay alive we might not have any holocost survivors at all.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, November 20, 2006, 13:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Again, I disagree with that view. That debate made me think about human rights a lot. We can choose to ignore logic, and accept as a fact that "human rights are". But like any math equasion, anything built on an assumption that doesn't hold, will eventually fall apart. For this reason, I choose to assume nothing.
I feel freedom to study, process, and dispense opinion is inalienable in a way. This is because regardless of how it is regulated, you can never fully block this. On the other hand, social freedoms should be earned. If someone is held hostage at gunpoint, then he/she has some choices. He/she can choose to confront the hostile entity, or choose to wait. This situation is what I mentioned to earlier as silent acceptance. But when push comes to shove; when the safety is removed, and the hammer cocked; when the enemy stands there with death in his eyes, one has to make a choice once again. All animals in nature make the same choice, sit/run/confront. It is the responsibility of the threatened to protect his life. Someone held against their will may "deserve" freedom in a social right sense, but above that, they are "responsible" to protect themselves.
There are holocaust survivors because people did act. Some escaped. Some resisted. Some grit their teeth and did what they could do best, silent acceptance. I'm not justifying the actions of the oppressor. That is definitely not the case. I am simply saying that all persons have the right/responsibility to protect their own freedoms.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Saturday, November 18, 2006, 21:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hitler committed his atrocities with the consent of his people. Otherwise, someone would have shot him, or one of his generals would have revolted. What I've been trying to get at all along is that the people have the power, whether awarded by society or not. To not excersize that power is to support the tyranny by the so-called undemocratic government.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, November 18, 2006, 15:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Would you mind telling mr why you think Switzerland is the closest thing to "pure democracy"?"
Switzerland's system of direct democracy is unique in today's political landscape. It allows citizens to challenge or propose laws, and bring them to a national vote. The Cantons also have significant autonomy for internal matters, all of which minimizes the federal government's powers affording greater power to the individual citizen.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Friday, November 17, 2006, 18:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Unless someone decides to tap your phones, pick some random statement you made spur of the moment, and label you an enemy combatant. In which case you get locked away without being tried, possibly without even being told why you got nabbed, and possibly tortured. Then if you are lucky, they find out you were no such thing, and dump you back into a democratic society, without compensating you. Three cheers for democracy hey?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Monday, November 20, 2006, 11:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
If it's based on an iota of truth, you can stretch the exaggeration from L.A to Miami, and it's still good as a sarcastic retort. That said, people have been detained for having the wrong name, so I wouldn't be surprised if it did happen.
Your assignment for quiet time, Chris Rock, Dave Chapell, Bill Hicks, George Carlin. One hour each.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Friday, November 17, 2006, 21:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yet such a nation can invade other countries by labelling them totalitarian dictatorships. America the beautiful, champion of freedom. Robbing her own of the very freedoms Iraq supposedly lacked under Saddam's rule. All under the pretext of a gallant war to crush the evils of dictatorial oppression and terrorism...which somehow became synonyms somewhere along the way, though nobody really knows when or how... Makes a darn pretty picture dunnit?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from openmind
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 19:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
um... i'm not american so i couldn't give a sh** about this Pat Tillman guy, unless they make a good movie out of it... I love good war movies! In fact, i never heard of him until this article was posted.
Over here, we've got daily instances of soldiers that die or get maimed in border skirmishes along the entire northern territory, and blown to bits by islamic insurgents in the southern regions ... and er ... we really couldn't care less about making one of the dead soldiers a hero
if a soldier dies in action ... 'coz ... well that's what they're paid for, that's a risk they signed up for.
If a boxer goes blind from getting knocked out in the ring ...does that make him a hero? no it's simply part of the job and part of the risk.
The same goes for men & women in the military profession.
What did Pat Tillman's death do for the american people?
Did his death put an end to the war? ....or save the entire nation?
Did his death save the entire east coast? ...or west coast? ...or coast gaurd? Did his death save an entire state? ...or city? ...or county?
So what makes a 'hero' a 'hero'? If this tillman guy is credited as a 'hero' for his deeds i.e. sacrificing opportunities back home for combat etc. then all others who did similarly would also be considered a hero... and there are millions around the world who make sacrifices to serve their country's military force.
... but a 'hero' is meant to be a rare breed, one who stands out from the masses because of an unusual sacrifice or virtue
- THE RESULTS OF WHICH BENEFITTED SOME NOBLE CAUSE.
... but how did tillman's death benefit a noble cause? since it was a casualty, it might be considered that his death actually worked against the "noble cause".
Ultimately ... the masses need a 'hero' and a 'hero' should be created a 'hero' by the people --- not by some government whether it be capitalist, communist, socialist, or "democratic" as propaganda to endorse/gain favor for war, imperialism, election campaign... etc.
Don't get me wrong guys, I STAND IN RESPECT, ADMIRATION, AND GRIEVANCE FOR PAT TILLMAN, HIS DECISIONS, HIS ENDURANCE, HIS STRENGTH, HIS SACRIFICE, HIS PATRIOTISM ... HIS DEATH
The same government making a 'hero' out of the few is directly responsible for the unnecessary deaths of countless others.
The deaths of it's own citizens! ... and for what? What is this "noble cause" anyway? In 200years from now, when us humans reminisce about this war that America fought in Iraq, we will sadly shake our heads at the thought that many fine patriotic men and women shed their blood for ... (drumroll) ... a flow of 'much more oil' to my fellow americans who already live in a grossly extravagant society.
The government is just taking advantage of the situation by erecting a statue and publicizing Pat Tillman... and it's sad. A 'hero' is one whom emerged from the masses and should be immortalized as a 'hero' by the masses.
(reply to this comment)
| from PopNFresh
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 12:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
September 12th, 2001 my boyfriend enlisted in the army to serve his country at a time when he knew he was needed most. He gave up quite a few good opportunities when he signed up, but he did it for sincere reasons.
Ultimately he served in Iraq for a year and a half until he was medivac'd out. In my eyes he's a hero. He doesn't have a statue in front of a stadium, or a memorial to his name. He also didn't die. What he does have is a couple pieces of metal and cloth that show where he's been and what he's done, a discharge paper from the army, a few injuries he will never heal from, and the respect of everyone who knows him and what he did for his country.
Pat Tilman did the same thing. He not only gave up millions, but he also gave up his passion. He sacrificed something he truly loved for something he loved even more, and that was his country and everyone in it. Like smash said, Rangers is not an easy program, and just making it through that is pretty admirable. But he served his country, and died for his country. That was the act of one man. Yes, he was famous, and yes, he's good looking, but he also is the symbol of everyone like him who put thier lives on the line because they signed up to serve when the country needed them most. He walked into it knowing there was going to be battle (unlike many others who had no idea).
A memorial, statue, or whatever they are making in honor of him is in my mind a memorial of all those who did the same thing. So it makes me proud that we are recognizing what he's done, and I don't think it lessens the stories of those who are not publicly recognized.
That's just my opinion though.
(reply to this comment)
| from Baxter
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 09:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think I get where you're coming from. But 'hero' is, for the most part, an assignation assigned by other people in relation to their own aspirations and their own insecurities, as well as their own pain. It does not always apply to people who do things which are outstanding and wholly exceptional. Firstly: he is a hero to every person who has a son or daughter who is voluntarily engaged in military service. Secondly: he is a hero to everyone who has lost a relative in service. In both instances, his sacrifice of a wholly promising career as well as his very different, though not necessarily less grave, sacrifice of his life help to highlight the less publicly prominent sacrifices of all the less promising and much less appreciated sacrifices of unnamed and unconsidered casualties of a war which will become both the highlight and the unhealed scar of this decade. In a way, his singular tragedy lost in the greater collague of similar tragedies will serve as a monument for those who cannot or will not be named. In no way does the fact that he was killed by friendly fire negate from the tragedy of his demise, considering how many others have died in the same way.
(reply to this comment)
| From Phoenixkidd
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 11:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's true Baxter, the word Hero is subjective. It can mean different things to different people. Perhaps I should state he should not be regarded as a National Hero, he did no more to serve our country than the millions who have signed up for the Military. Perhaps his memorial will serve to remind us all of the dangers of war, wether in combat or not, and serve to remind us all of the "Hero's" who risk their lives and sometimes die through "Friendly Fire". I just believe he is getting too much credit, and I think the public's vision is clouded by his looks and by the fact that he played in the NFL. I wish more "little" people in the Military would get more credit. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Oddman
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 00:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
There are soldiers who have died worse deaths, and are not elevated to hero status. Why? For the simple fact that they were not famous before they went into action.
(reply to this comment)
| from Weeder
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 17:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think the Kamikaze were heros for their country. Banzai! Banzai!
(reply to this comment)
| from Weeder
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 17:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think the Kamikaze were heros for their country. Banzai! Banzai!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from smashingrrl
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 16:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Consider yourself lucky to not be in the same room with me.
Pat Tillman didn't want to be a hero. Tillman watched TV along with all of us on Sept 11th. Football and money seemed a little pointless to him. He joined the Army. He made the Rangers, no easy task. He went to war. He died. Yes, he died by friendly fire. Yes, he was a damn good-looking guy. That's not the point. He didn't ask to be a hero. He didn't ask for a statue. The Army made him a hero. He just lived a life anyone should be proud of.
Hero or not he deserves a shit load more respect than you just gave him. So does everyone who wears a uniform and puts their life on the line.
I don't give a shit about patriotism. I do respect honor, courage, and loyalty. He lived those values.
Before you question whether or not he deserves credit for his life or death, pick up a rifle or shut the fuck up. I hate putting things in such black-and-white terms but I won't stand by and watch anyone speak ill of a dead soldier who gave his life for honor.
(reply to this comment)
| From Phoenixkidd
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 07:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
I just find it rather Ironic that we place this man on such a high pedestal when we neglect to honor all the real heros that fought and bled for our country. It's kind of like complaining about atrocities in Kuwait when we couldn't really care less what happened to Bosnia & Rawanda and now in Sudan. It's just misplaced memorial. And don't get me wrong if there ever was a draft I would pick up my rifle and shut someone else up before I shut up for good. I love my country and believe democracy and pax Americana is a fluctuating work in progress that has yet to grant it's full potential to each of our citizens. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Nick
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 16:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
I tend to disagree.
I think that anyone out there fighting on the front lines is a hero to some extent. And in his case even more so because of what he had to sacrifice to be there.
(reply to this comment)
| from conan
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 14:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think a good part of it is the fact that in this day and age where money is seen as power and everyone usually wants more money than they already have, Tillman turned down millions in signing bonuses and contracts to fight for what he believed was the just cause of American freedom. The fact that he died in an accident while fulfilling his patriotic duty made him an easy target for both the Bush government and pro sports as a sacrificial hero who gave up the 'easy life' of a pro athlete to be a GI. The NFL was happy to embrace someone who didn't come across as a money hungry, attention starved, rich, spoiled athlete unlike so many of their other players and so did what they could to promote his 'heroism' and 'legacy'.
I don't believe he's a genuine hero, but he did do something completely out of character and outside of 'normal' actions for your typical pro athlete. The rest of it, statue, name plaques, etc., are just marketing tools to cash in on the hero they helped create and all the gadgets just add to his lore.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]