Peace is not the answer

[walstan]

vern humphrey:

When was this? For whom did you work? Where?

Sarawak, Borneo, SF’s.

 

[vern_humphrey]

walstan:

Sarawak, Borneo, SF’s.

So you were never actually in Viet Nam.

 

[FightingFat]

Anyone seen this yet?

Dear President Bush,

We are veterans, families of active-duty military service people, and parents of soldiers who died as a result of the war in Iraq. We have been traveling the country from your vacation ranch in Crawford, TX, speaking to the American people about the true cost of your war based on lies. We have brought this nation a precious gift – the truth. It is a truth that you have tried so hard to hide, as you banned the media from photographing flag-draped coffins as they come in to Dover Air Force Base. We brought the anguish of military families whose loved ones are and will be in harm’s way for no good reason. We brought the determination and the pain of Iraq Veterans, who all took a vow to defend the Constitution of this country, but were betrayed by being sent off the fight an unjustifiable war. And we brought the voice of veterans from the Vietnam War who know so well about physical and psychological damage from a war that should never have happened.

In 51 cities, 28 states and over 200 venues, we carried the message: Bring Our Troops Home Now, Take Care of Them of When They Get Home and Never Again Send Them Off to a War Based on Lies.

President Bush, we are outraged by the arrogance you displayed on May 1, 2003 when you declared “Mission Accomplished” while the killing and dying continued; when you said on July 2, 2003, “Bring ‘Em On” in response to a question about the armed Iraqi resistance; and when you refused to meet with the families of the fallen and with military families in August of this year in Crawford, Texas. We have come across this country, to Washington, D.C. to once again ask you to meet with us.

We still have questions for you: What is the “noble cause” for which you sent our country to war?
How many more lives are you willing to sacrifice?
What are you going to do to end the war?

As the President, we expect you to listen to the voices of those who know the real cost of this war. We expect you to listen to the voices of those who truly support the troops. We expect you to answer our questions about this war. We expect you to hear us as we say, bring them home now.

We will not cease until all of our loved ones are brought home from a war they should never have been sent off to fight, until they get the care they need, and until we are sure that they are never again sent off to a war based on lies.

Sincerely
Gold Star Families for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, and Veterans For Peace

 

[vern_humphrey]

Straight from Cindy Sheehan.

Notice her use of “Gold Star Families for Peace” – still trying to pretend that the Gold Star Mothers support her.

 

[estesbob]

walstan:

Oh and stickman, try looking up your definitions, Saddam was not a terrorist, he was the leader (Good or bad makes no difference) of his country, .

I beleive Chamberlain expressed the same opinion about Hitler in 1939…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mlchance:

Yes, we can, which is precisely why your patronizing crusade as a pseudo-moderator has long since passed the threshold of unnecessary and downright silly.
– Mark L. Chance.

Emphasis mine.

1. There is a non sequitur between the clause "Yes, we can [refer to the guidelines on the forum] and the clause “your patronizing crusade as a pseudo-moderator has long since passed the threshold of unnecessary and downright silly.” The former clause does not demonstrate the latter clause. Therefore your argument is a non-sequitur.
2. Instead of accepting my reference to the Guidelines to which you claim we may all refer, you have chosen to escalate. On what grounds have you escalated? Do you think the questions to which I referred were (a) appropriate use of sarcasm or (b) rhetorical for the purpose of introducing a new aspect of inquiry?

If we can all refer to the Guidelines on the forum, then no one of us may be singled out for making such references. This is self-evident. Instead you have singled me out from among many other posters as having “passed the threshold of unnecessary and downright silly.”

I think this singling-out cannot be justified because of the following Guideline: “Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.”

If you are indeed treating me as an equal, then I should be able to point to posts from you which take issue with references by other posters to the Guidelines. But I do not see such posts from you. Therefore I conclude that your comments about my reference to the Guidelines are differential treatment – and not equal treatment.

I would then ask on what grounds this differential treatment has occurred. For there to be grounds for differential treatment, then there would have to be an absence of grounds for equal treatment. This is a logical contradiction of terms and therefore your differential treatment of me is, of necessity, without grounds.

As to your choice of the term ‘patronize’ from dictionary.com: To treat in a condescending manner.

‘Condescend’ implies inequity in expectations. My ‘reference’ to the Guidelines had everything to do with *equal expectations, *nothing to do with ‘special’ expectations, and therefore was in no measure *‘patronizing.’ *‘Special expectations’ would be, for example, that some posters can post ‘references to the Guidelines’ and some (like myself) cannot.

This point of view is wrong. The fact is that the Rules say "Reports of infractions of these rules should be submitted to the moderators by the “Report Post” feature. No exceptions are set out. So my point of view was wrong. But so, it seems to me, were the points of view of other posters who posted references to the Guidelines. Our points of view were, it seems to me, equally wrong.

Point taken. However, so is your point of view wrong – not only for differentiating between their references and my references – without grounds – but also for the uncivil and inflammatory remarks which your point of view included in making such a differentiation.

continued…

 

[estesbob]

vern humphrey:

In fact, the Viet Cong were virtually wiped out in Tet of '68. Afterwards every “Viet Cong” my company killed or captured was actually a North Viet Namese Regular – and carried a Geneva Convention Card to prove it.

THANK YOU for your service for our Country!

 

[mlchance]

(Good or bad makes no difference)

Wow. Neither good nor bad makes any difference. Amazing.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…continued

By choosing the terminology ‘patronizing crusade’ and ‘unnecessary and downright silly’:

1. Your post singles me out from among several other posters who have referred to the Guidelines on the open forum, implying that my reference to the Guidelines is extraordinary – where, in fact, it is not extraordinary;
2. Your post opens the door to acceptance of unequal expectations concerning sarcasm and inappropriate use of rhetorical questions – where unequal expectations do not in fact exist;
3. Your post flames in disregard of the Forum Guidelines which state “Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited” and “Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.”

You are suggesting by the terminology “pseudo-moderator” that my intent is to emulate the function of a moderator. This suggestion is transparently unfair, unjustified, and untrue. More to the point, it countermands the Guideline: “It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.”

Since what I think seems to be in question, however, let me clarify what I think:

1. It seems to me that, according to your post, every other poster except myself can refer to the Guidelines – where such references are posted on the open forum as opposed to by means of the http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cak/report.gif button. In this case your objections are, as I have demonstrated, without grounds because the rules do not set out an exception to pushing the** !** button.
2. It also seems to me that, contrary to your post, *I am *indeed counted as an equal in the community of posters who can refer to the Guidelines – were such references permitted on the open forum, which they are not. In this case your objections are not only without grounds, but they are also without cause.
3. It also seems to me that all posters may only refer to the guidelines by means of the ** !** button – in which case I expect you to have taken issue with the other posters who have referred to the Guidelines on the open forum. This you have not done.

On this occasion, I am according you the courtesy of a reply on the open forum. However, in future, my way will be the** ! **way.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Break time. A couple of people in here need to cool off.

 

[Matt25]

Irish Prelate Points to Peaceful Power of the Word

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 9, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The Liturgy of the Word and the homily have the power to transform hatred into reconciliation, the primate of Ireland told the Synod of Bishops. “On so many occasions of great tragedy and violence,” Archbishop Sean Brady of Armagh, Northern Ireland, said, “the power of the Word and the homily to transform attitudes of anger, vengeance and retaliation into events of reconciliation, forgiveness and healing, has been both humbling and inspiring.”

He noted how the common language of the peace process, which recently led to the Irish Republican Army laying down it weapons, showed biblical roots with words such as justice, peace and forgiveness. “A historic moment in that political process has been achieved with the decommissioning of weapons by the largest paramilitary organization,” the Irish prelate said Saturday.

Archbishop Brady recalled that “two clergymen who have worked for many years to promote dialogue and reconciliation, a former president of the Methodist church and a Redemptorist priest, were asked to witness the act of decommissioning.” “This was, perhaps, among other things, an acknowledgment of the role played by ministers of the Word of God in creating the conditions for reconciliation and peace,” he added. “It attests to the power of the Word, under the action of the Holy Spirit, to make all things new.”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

walstan:

You know, I worked with the American military in Vietnam

It’s good to have honourable work. I’m proud of you.

(Training them actually)

That’s good to know: accountability shared. A very neighbourly gesture. :tiphat:

walstan:

and we (that’s the other Brits and I) used to watch the Gung Ho attitude of many of them

Gung Ho attitude? What kind of attitude do the British soldiers have when they charge into battle? Tally Ho attitude? What’s the difference between Gung Ho and Tally Ho? I mean beside the Gung and the Tally. Ooooh. Better not say that too loud. Vern might tell us about the Crimea. I like his stories, though. Perhaps you might too.

Vern, got any good stories?

(not all I hasten to add, some were bloody good)

Largesse is a heroic quality.

walstan:

Guess whose “a*s” got kicked and, you still haven’t learnt.

Haven’t learned what, walstan? Care to go down the list of campaigns the British lost? Did you learn from those? Did you learn from the London bombings?

What exactly do you think we are supposed to be learning? Who sets the curriculum? You know, sincerely, I think the trick is to find a way to agree on what it is we need to be learning. But then that begs the question of who sets the curriculum, doesn’t it. Who do you think should set the curriculum?

walstan:

Haven’t you figured out yet, For every Vietcong you killed you dragged in another ten

Make no mistake, walstan. The Americans learned Nam.

walstan:

for every terrorist you kill you drag in another ten.

But now you are drawing the lamentable, subtle, and wrong connection between Nam and Iraq. There is no connection.

walstan:

Oh and stickman, try looking up your definitions, Saddam was not a terrorist, he was the leader… So my argument stands, remove the support of the community and you defeat terrorism.

Whether or not we agree with the terrorist leaders and their thralls is material. Your argument is a house built on sand; on an incomprehensible casting-aside of the material facts impinging on and forming the realities of the WOT. To what end?

Tea?
cache.corbis.com/thumb/14/77/67/14776730.jpg

 

[Matt25]

Originally Posted by walstan
*

Oh and stickman, try looking up your definitions, Saddam was not a terrorist, he was the leader (Good or bad makes no difference) of his country, .*

estesbob:

I beleive Chamberlain expressed the same opinion about Hitler in 1939…

Hmm, the Head of State is the Head of State. Thats the way the world is. Stalin was head of the Soviet State when allied with the USA. Would not recognising him because he was wicked have helped defeat the Nazi’s? Mao was head of the Peoples Republic of China when Nixon shook hands with him was Nixon an appeaser? And what about Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

Gung Ho attitude? What kind of attitude do the British soldiers have when they charge into battle? Tally Ho attitude? What’s the difference between Gung Ho and Tally Ho? I mean beside the Gung and the Tally. Ooooh. Better not say that too loud. Vern might tell us about the Crimea. I like his stories, though. Perhaps you might too.

Vern, got any good stories?

“Gung ho” is Chinese and was introduced into English via the United States Marine Corps.

Lt. Col. Evans F. Carlson was an observer with the 8th Route Army (Chinese Communist) in the period just prior to the Japanese attack on the US. The slogan of the 8th Route Army was “Gung Ho” (pronounced “Hung Huh”). It means “Work Together.”

Carlson later formed the 2nd Raider Battalion, USMC and adopted the slogan for his battalion. It quickly spread through the rest of the Corps.

“Slogan,” by the way, is Irish for “battle cry.”

 

[walstan]

estesbob:

I beleive Chamberlain expressed the same opinion about Hitler in 1939…

Yep,… and he wasn’t a terrorist either.

 

[ShroudMan]

mlchance:

Yes, we can, which is precisely why your patronizing crusade as a pseudo-moderator has long since passed the threshold of unnecessary and downright silly.

– Mark L. Chance.

Amen brother, AMEN!

 

[vern_humphrey]

walstan:

Yep,… and he wasn’t a terrorist either.

No doubt that was a comfort to the 12,000,000 people he killed in concentration camps.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[walstan]

There are two ways of going into a battle, one is to think your enemy is easy, your training is wonderful and you are totally immune to all danger because your Soooooo good, it usually gets you killed. It’s called the Gung Ho approach .

The other is to respect your enemy, to be aware that his abilities may be just as good if not better than yours, and that to beat him you have to be cleverer, slyer, craftier, whatever it takes. That way there’s no gaurantee you’ll live, but the odds are certainly far better. That’s called training.

Of course there is a third approach, it’s the one every military man I know prefers, it’s called getting your political leaders to sort out their problems and differences BEFORE the war starts. That way you’ll almost certainly live. That’s called diplomacy.

 

[walstan]

vern humphrey:

So you were never actually in Viet Nam.

Never said I was, we had enough stupid wars of our own making, all the way from Sarawak to Aden without joining in with somebody elses.

 

[vern_humphrey]

walstan:

There are two ways of going into a battle, one is to think your enemy is easy, your training is wonderful and you are totally immune to all danger because your Soooooo good, it usually gets you killed. It’s called the Gung Ho approach .

The other is to respect your enemy, to be aware that his abilities may be just as good if not better than yours, and that to beat him you have to be cleverer, slyer, craftier, whatever it takes. That way there’s no gaurantee you’ll live, but the odds are certainly far better. That’s called training.

You must have served in a very strange Army. I always found the best men in combat were the most aggressive.