 |
| |
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't see where Sheehan has ever claimed her opinion matters more than others. On the contrary, it's the wingnuts who have been claiming her opinion doesn't matter. |
I was responding more to the people on this and other forums who have acted as if her opinion was much more significant or "correct" because her son was killed in Iraq.
quote:
OTOH, if said person is not signficiant, why does the right seem to be so desperate to take her down, by hook or by crook? |
I do not consider myself part of those desperate to take her down by hook or by crook, but I would wager it has to do with the Karl Rove-esque heavyhanders whose gameplan consists of total war with anyone dissenting with the White House.
quote:
Because it is very easy to talk about how the war is just or not just when you haven't paid the price. The opinion pf people here who have served in Iraq, or who have lost a family member, carry more weight than the rest of us. Does that mean that we must agree with them? No. Should we treat their opinion with respect? Yes. |
Of course we should treat her opinion with respect, the same respect all should be granted in a democracy. You say her son's death gives her opinion more weight than yours, mine, and others. I disagree. All it does is make her far more emotional about it, limiting her view and perspective to that of a grieving mother. I would say my opinion is far more objective than hers, as I am not burdened with the emotional baggage of having a relative KIA. Nor am I the pawn of anti-war groups using her as a figurehead, willing or no, for their own agenda (which may or may not be one and the same).
This is obviously open to much debate and disagreement, but there you have it. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I wonder why her particular story has garnered so much press. And who has moral authority to speak about this war? What does "moral authority" even mean, and is it worth a damn? |
Post of the thread.
Interesting article
Last edited by DinoDoc on 28-08-2005 at 09:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
Kaak quote:
You guys are having a lot of trouble seeing the true causality of the situation. Bush did not kill her son. Her son signed a quid pro quo agreement; he would serve as he was instructed in exchange for money, training and other benefits. When a person signs up for the military, there is no clause in the agreement saying anything similar to "you are guarenteed that you will think all wars are just and approve of the actions taken by the military of the United States." It really pisses me off that before this war people though joining the military was a free ride. The purpose of a military is to fight. Fighting can cause you to die. Sheehan knew her son was signing up, and did not stop him. She is as much to blame as anyone else. |
Fraud negates that contract, morally if not legally. No one signed up to invade other countries on false pretenses. Bush would be impeached if Congress had any balls and credibility.
quote:
Also, she has proven through her statements that her position is one of mindless hate, not logical opposition. The loss of her son has clearly caused her a great deal of emotional duress, and she is lashing out. |
Umm...what is logical about giving political leaders a pass when they lie us into a war? She is not giving them a pass and that makes her mindless?
quote:
The people who know her best, her family, have refused to support her, her husband has filed for divorce, and i'm sure she views these as betrayals caused by bush as well. |
The family opposing her are mainly in-laws from what I understand. In-laws aint usually considered family if you know what I mean.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Az - Nationalist versus Libetarian premise. IMHO - note opinion, I agree with Berz, I see it as an implied contract and the US military is not founded on interventionist policies, and in fact has been presented throughout almost all of it's history (almost for nitpickers) as a defensive force.
A Nationalist - my country right or wrong, etc. would totally disagree with us. That attitude is much more common in Israel, and you know how I feel about the results it has achieved there. Sadly, in the US instead of a continuum over that we seem to have developed a very nasty dichotomy - actually that's redundant, that kind of dichotomy when it gets into politics is almost always nasty as there is no center to calm things down so to speak.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
quote:
Az - Nationalist versus Libetarian premise. IMHO - note opinion, I agree with Berz, I see it as an implied contract and the US military is not founded on interventionist policies, and in fact has been presented throughout almost all of it's history (almost for nitpickers) as a defensive force.
|
I certainly disagree with this. The US military has been presented in the last century, the one that matters, as a much as a force for good as a simple defence force. I think You really have to enjoy an equisite case of selective sight to ignore that facet in the presentation the US military, and thus any implied "moral contract" cannot be called fraudulent.
quote:
A Nationalist - my country right or wrong, etc. would totally disagree with us. That attitude is much more common in Israel, and you know how I feel about the results it has achieved there. Sadly, in the US instead of a continuum over that we seem to have developed a very nasty dichotomy - actually that's redundant, that kind of dichotomy when it gets into politics is almost always nasty as there is no center to calm things down so to speak.
|
The current US system of personal and geopolitical values would've have survived a day in these areas, IMHO ( again, opinion  ). It would either died out, or changed drastically, both of which mean that the current american system is unadapted to harsher enviroments. 9/11 is such a perfect example for this. It's the proof to the fact that one of the approaches suffers from a very critical problem: In order to continue to compete in the argument for ethics, it should remain relevant.
quote:
I would call it fraud if they died on a battlefield created by lying politicians. Your analysis ignores the fraudulent grounds for the war... |
All battlefields are created by politicians, and all politicians are lying, therefore all battlefields are created by lying politicians. This reduces the entire discussion to little chunks. The number of wars that were started by people due to motives that were pure and logical within the borders of their own belief systems is very low, and usually enjoyed the dubious honor of being wars waged by insane fanatics. Not all of them, mind you, but many of them.
Now, I am not some sort of moral relativist moron () but I do think that since most wars were started due to 'dirty' reasons, without discimination over their ethical value , the dwelling over the reasoning of this war is meaningless. Basically, yeah, it was probably started over the wrong reasons - so were most wars. Has little to do with their ethical value, and the "lying politicians" part is only a small part of the inherent wrongness of war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
All battlefields are created by politicians, and all politicians are lying, therefore all battlefields are created by lying politicians. |
All battlefields are not created by lies. This one was...
quote:
This reduces the entire discussion to little chunks. The number of wars that were started by people due to motives that were pure and logical within the borders of their own belief systems is very low, and usually enjoyed the dubious honor of being wars waged by insane fanatics. Not all of them, mind you, but many of them. |
You just contradicted yourself. But your argument seems to be: all politicians lie, therefore we are morally obligated to fight for their lies.
quote:
Now, I am not some sort of moral relativist moron () but I do think that since most wars were started due to 'dirty' reasons, without discimination over their ethical value , the dwelling over the reasoning of this war is meaningless. Basically, yeah, it was probably started over the wrong reasons - so were most wars. Has little to do with their ethical value, and the "lying politicians" part is only a small part of the inherent wrongness of war. |
It isn't meaningless, if you sign up to defend your country and the politicians are sending you to invade other countries based on lies, you no longer have any moral obligation to fulfill that contract.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-08-2005 03:06
Ted 
|
|