Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

It has to be on halloween though. And you have to be dressed as McEnroe.

Didymus:



I am glad we agree on more than I thought. The whole time we were getting ready to invade, I just couldn't believe what my country was doing. America was especially vulnerable, and a lot of anger was very, very misplaced. Like you said, you cannot go invading countries on a whim.

The people in the armed forced ARE the ones who have to bear all of this... why should the people with the most promise pay for the mistakes of greedy politicians?

I think a common misconception of the peace movement is that we hate soldiers: This is totally untrue! Many of us are soldiers! We want our soldiers put into winnable situations -- ones where we can actually be peacekeepers! We want diplomacy to prevail as much as humanly possible!

You also made a very good point about Bush talking about the high points of Islam -- he was very careful about this point. I would have liked to have seen him go much further, though...with the resources that the US has, we could have really cooperated with other nations to knock out global terrorism. As it happened, most of Europe fears our vengence and our goals in the Middle East, when they should be helping us with a problem THE ENTIRE WORLD is facing. What terrible foreign relations! We are the most powerful country in the world, and our radical decisions have left us in a situation totally out of our control.

Surely we are smart enough to come up with a better solution than killing people.

And remember, being a conscientious objector is always an option for those in the military. You'd be a hero to me.

Trust me, I'd love to. But it's harder than you'd think. Nearly impossible.
If you refuse to go to Iraq, or refuse to follow any order for that matter (unless it's an unlawful order), you can go to jail. Not just a regular jail. Not white collar weekend resort jail. But umm...well you know what I'm talking about.

Regardless, this is what I signed on the dotted line for. This is what I raised my right hand and swore "so help me God" to do.

I appreciate all you guys' support. It really means alot to me and my family.


Agent Josh.

Agentseethroo --

Truth be told, I don't know if I could do it either.

I admire your sense of honor and duty. I believe that if everyone were to follow their own sense of such things, our problems would be solved.

Hey, thanks. That means a lot to me.

But on another note:
so um...no one likes the president, huh?
I really have no problem with him...I mean, yeah, this war on an "idea" is annoying...and a possible death sentence to many of my brothers...
But wasn't it inevitable? I mean...after September 11, SOMETHING had to be done...

Maybe we're just perpetuating the violence that will be committed against us.

But then again, if we just sat around and said "woah, they attacked our home...oh well," what would have come of it in the long run?

It's really a double-edged sword. If we don't attack back, we're weak. If we do attack, then they hate us more.

Oh well. Any thoughts?


Agent Josh

Good points. I think about that question all the time.

I know this is going to sound naive...

My friend Joel was remarked that what if we were going to bomb nations with bread? What if we were to fly planes over the country (or terrorist faction) and give them supplies and food? How can you kill someone who is giving you bread? How can you hate a country whose sole purpose is to assist others?

Our image in the world is that of a bully -- a capitalist bully who eats other nations' resources and gets fat off of them. The question is, how do we make them see us differently?

Maybe we should publically, humbly ask (not the terrorists, of course, but a trusted friend in another country) other nations what they need from us in order to solve the problem of terrorism, and in turn, we would be helping ourselves. Not to force issues, but to convince them that they need our help. America has been acting like we are the only ones with this issue, when everyone has been touched.

Yes, Something has to be done. The world needs to be changed and borders need to continue to be brought down. We need to work with the rest of the world and increase truth to the people and communicate, communicate, communicate.

If anyone can fix many of the world's problems, we can! We are America the strong, the great, the free! Let's start acting like it!

Well, bombing with bread is what we've done many times before in the past. We trained the Iraqis in warfare in the first place when they were being terrorized by Iran. We gave them food, equipment, taught them to fly, etc., etc.

Same with Afghanistan. We did indeed "bomb them with bread"

Sadly, they seem to always bite the hand that feeds them.

Yet another double edged sword. We don't help, they hate us because we're ugly Americans. They do help us, we're capitalists who are trying to change their way of life.

Josh.

But I don't see as eqipping them with weapons and training to kill our enemies as a positive thing, or as the same thing a sbombing with bread. They are not stupid -- they know that we are using them and actively choosing the lesser of the two evils, whether that be the Ayatollah, the communists or whatever.

I mean a (somewhat) unselfish action -- I am not asking GWB and Cheney and the countless others (though they should) to return the millions of dollars he made off their land, I am saying let's try to HELP them.

It makes me sad to think of all those weapons we gave them, because those are the same weapons that you see in the hands of the little kids over there.

Their lives are terrible over there; I think it is a natural reaction to 'bite the hand that feeds them' because they live in so much conflict. We need to be patient with such a country.

In my humble, humble, humble opinion, mind you.

If I offend you, Agent, please call me on it.

Zac

Not at all. If you wanna offend me, make fun of my hair.

But seriously, I see where you're coming from, but I still have to take in to account human nature. I don't think anyone REALLY trusts us, and we're just as reluctant to trust back.

I feel like everyone thinks we're "up to something" when we do anything, whether it's train or give food or anything like that.


Josh.

I am not usually this optimistic about human nature myself, but today is the 2nd to last day of school for my students.

The world is a wonderful place when the summer approaches, right?

Anyways, I see where you're coming from, don't think I'm just blowing off what you're saying, I'm sure you have a few years more experience than I've got, and you've seen how the world acts as a whole in regards to how the U.S. treats them.

The "bread bombing" is pretty radical, almost a biblical "turn the other cheek" approach.

As radical as it is, I'm reminded of Christ Himself. His teachings were the most radical ever, and he definitely "killed them with kindness."
However, they still nailed him to a tree.

wow, I brought this discussion to an entirely different plane!

Josh.

SeeThroo,

I must say that discussing things with you makes for a pleasant afternoon (not that I want to pick out curtains or anything).

As far as experience is concerned, I really have very little. I have recently just started to read voraciously (sp?) different authors that no one can deny (e.g. Howard Zinn, Noam Chompsky, Amy Goodman) and have have my eyes opened to a lot of things taht are going on -- many of which I need to take responsibility for as an American!

I like your line about jesus being a 'radical' -- all religion aside, that Man blows me away, when I think of all the things that he stood for in a time more violent than this one.

And... Jesus called his followers to 'pick up their cross and follow him.' Killing them with kindness and dying doesn't mean that you are wrong, I guess, in Jesus' eyes. I think that bible verse was used to argue the opposite earlier.

Ther first time I heard that bread bombing idea, I thought That Joel was nuts -- but the older I get, the more sense it makes. I think it would solve problems more quickly than the way we have been doing it most of the history of our country.

Sorry if this was offensive in any way. It was a reference to Strong Bad Email "personal favorites".

There is only ONE situation, ONE SITUATION ONLY, when someone should be a conscientious objector. And that's if they were drafted.

Every single man and woman in our armed forces signed up for the job. They knew the possibilities right off the bat and they accepted them. They VOLUNTEERED for them.

No, any man or woman who would be a conscientious objector would NEVER be a hero. They'd be a coward, and a disgrace to the oaths they swore.

WikiPedia's entry for Conscientious objector. Read it.

The The Universal Declaration of Human Rights would also suggest that conscientious objectors are not cowards.

Also, the term hero is one of inclusion, not exclusion. One is considered a hero for doing something extraordinary. One can not "never be a hero."

I disagree, Gemini. How's about a.. hypothetical situation:

Say I hypothetically joined the military, as many young people do, with the sole intention of hypothetically defending my country and the liberty of my countrymen.

Then some hypothetical halfwit-in-chief decides that instead I would be going off to fight for some hypothetical reason, say, his corporate interests, a.k.a. his hypothetical rich white cronies. I would not go. I had not, as you say, "signed up for the job". I had signed up to demonstrate my patriotism in a very real way, not to be a stooge for some hypothetical boy wonder's neocon buddies.

My hypothetical conscientious objection would be no less noble (or no more ignoble, depending on how you look at it) than that of a drafted conscientious objector, and though you and yours might name me all sorts of nasty hypothetical things, my hypothetical family and friends would understand my reasons.

Hypothetically speaking.

_________________

Well said. Conscientious objection is not cowardice, but for us, it's pretty much not an option.

It is an option, however, when an order is unlawful.

Every order to abuse those prisoners in Abu Ghraib was unlawful, and therefore, those soldiers who carried out said orders could have refused with no risk of punitive and/or legal action to worry about. Sure, the ones issuing the orders could have gotten ticked off and perhaps tried to punish their soldiers, but in the end, the soldiers would get off with no trouble, and their superiors would be the ones being court marshalled.

This issue sort of pisses me off, because what the offending parties said as their defense was garbage. They were bored and young and that's about it.

Josh.

It was me that used this quote earlier. I was merely using the verse to show that Jesus didn't always talk of peace. In this verse, he talks about denying family and friends if they won't accept Jesus, and warns of persecution in the form of the sword or of fire.

In retrospect, it wasn't a very appropriate verse to use. Please accept my apology for twisting scripture. The verse doesn't specifically say that a Christian should take up the sword in his/her own defense, but simply warns the Christian of what is ahead of them when they accept Christ and "take up their cross". They will not get peace; they will get persecution.

Part of "taking up your cross" does involve enduring persecution in meekness. Vengeance is the Lord's, and those who persecute will be punished in due time. These verses actually back up a point Lumberjackman said earlier:



Turning the other cheek is always more valiant -- more courageous -- than fighting back.

I don't want to back down from the defense of my position in this matter. I think Bush has been a good president. I also think, given what we knew a year ago, going to war with Iraq was the right decision. However, I want you all to know that this thread has changed my mind about a lot of things. So many good points have been made by Didymus, Jones, Lumberjackman, Seethroo, and Tom. We all learn new things every day, and I've learned a lot from this discussion. Thanks.

Wow!

I leave the site for a couple of hours and the discussion goes crazy go nuts! Excellent discussion, all. I knew that I would find that homestar runner fans were intelligent people that you could have intelligent discussions with.

Oops, dangling participle.

Everything that has been said in regards to the objector = coward comment was very succinct and right on, in my opinion. Being a C.O. has to be the LEAST cowardly act you can do in the military, I would imagine. THey must not treat you very nice, to say the least. I would add that as a human being, you should be allowed to change your mind, you should be allowed to believe what you want to. I have read and watched interviews of soldiers during the Gulf War conflict who became staunch pacifists and changed their minds against the institution of war; they felt so strongly that they went to prison.


Regarding Abu Ghraib: again, I want to direct the focus away from the soldiers to the authority. Just what is in that torture memo? This is scary stuff folks. Is the president ordering torture? Does the American people want to sanction torture? Isn't it important to know the truth?

Darn it, it is so important to know the facts. Why does it seem like they are so hard to find on most of these issues?

I agree, Joey. I think he's been a good president, he's just made a few mistakes. But really, who can you expect to run a country and never make a mistake?

It was a pleasure discussing with you guys.


The Josh.

He has made a lot of mistakes.

He could not admit a single one of them.

But on the other hand, do we want our presidents to admit their mistakes? In most cases, that would be political suicide.

Or would it? I have heard a lot of news clips of Reagan admitting the whole Iran Contra affair, and he sounded really good when he did it.

Could George W Bush pull off that sort of thing? I don't think so. He would look really silly admitting he had done something wrong. He would be afraid to do that, I believe.He has built up such a crazy momentum with his over-confidence, to admit fault now would take a great deal of acting. Or something.

I don't know if I could admit fault and be really really sorry in front of EVERY ONE IN THE WORLD. I wouldn't want to be president.

Just thinking.

The right thing is always going to be the hardest to do. But IF he does do it, it'll pay off, I'm positive of that.

It may be too late though. If he does indeed admit his mistakes, people would think it's just a re-election ploy.

Josh again.

If he does do it, he'll probably win.

Wait on a moment...

//Rushes to tie up GWB's phone line

I was reading through older posts and noticed I missed this. I'd like to remind everybody that Saddam Hussein has never perpetrated an attack on U.S. soil, not on September 11 and not ever. (Don't be confused, by mentioning this I am not trying to negate any of the previous arguments about WMDs or Hussein's.. evil-ness, nor am I qualified to discuss any links or lack thereof between Hussein and Al Qaeda.)

Anyway, the vast majority of Americans have no idea why we're in Iraq. I sure don't. We might be fighting a "War On Terror", or we might be liberating the Iraqi people, or we might just be in it for the oil. Whatever. All I know is that we're not in Iraq to bring to justice to perpetrators of 9/11. Unfortunately, so many Americans think that this is still about 9/11, and they're still behind the president for that reason alone, because they're still angry. They have every right to be angry, of course, but they're behind the president for the wrong reasons. Bush and his administration realize that, and have used it to their advantage, and will keep doing so until November.

_________________

You've touched on an important point, IJ, that I've tried to help people understand. People put Saddam and Osama in the same category and automatically assume they are working together. This makes people believe without thinking that Saddam was guilty of 9-11. Saddam was guilty of many things, but he was totally incapable of involvement in 9-11. Not that he wouldn't have if he could; he just wouldn't have been able. This leads to the conclusion that Saddam was actually trying to mass-produce WDM's (by WDM's, I mean chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons) to give to Osama.

My conclusion: Saddam is not guilty of 9-11, regardless of what other things he might be guilty of. The fact is that, after the Taliban, Saddam was next in the list on the War on Terror. When that didn't fly internationally, then WDM's became the issue. When WDM's never showed up, it became the liberation of the Iraqi people (who, I will confess, needed liberation desperately--it remains to be seen if they can handle it).

But if the war really is about liberation of oppressed people, then doesn't this obligate us to start invading every nation whose politics are not our own? Will we invade Saudi Arabia, whose laws are every bit as unjust as Iraq's? Probably not. They are one of our allies and our biggest foreign supplier of oil. How about China? No way; we might lose. Strongbadia? They're too busy playing badminton.

_________________

Heh. Thanks for lightening the mood a bit, here.

Just came across this:

http://www.octobersurprise.net/

The sad part is, none of the scenarios seem terribly unlikely. I've rather been assuming that Usama will be "captured" just before the election. I'd be surprised if Bush arranged for a terrorist attack, but I wouldn't put it past him. And I don't think he'll pull out of Iraq as an election move, since the only people whose votes that might swing aren't swinging.

But the rest? I'm rather drearily banking on it, after what he pulled in Florida last time 'round.

_________________

What he pulled?

I'm sorry, Bush didn't pull anything. Gore was the one who kept asking for recounts, and they kept coming up with Bush in the lead. Gore was just a sore loser because he wanted to abuse/rewrite the system that has been in place for over 200 years and it wasn't gonna happen.

Now I have been nice about this the last 3 and a half years. My wife and I argue about this all the time: She says,

"Bush stole the election!" and I say:

"Now let's not be petty about this... he probably did, but we can't keep bringing this up."

But ya know what? The more facts I see on this, the more I see how wrong I was. More than 60,000 African American voters were purged from the votes: and statistically, African American vote 90% democrat! The whole 'chad' fiasco was only an issue in certain regions of the state: mostly Democratic!

Give me a break here! Our democracy is a sham!
You can't even call it a democracy -- Gore was the one who was popularly elected! You would have to call it an electorally elected democracy. The electoral system was put in place because the government didn't trust the people to make intelligent choices. I say we do away with the whole electoral process! It has clearly been shown to be easily manipulated!

I find it particularly ironic, perhaps what our current president will be best remembered for, that the non-democratically elected President is installing democracies abroad.

...and a randomly selected, innocent definition from the dictionary, pointed at no elected official in particular:

You're right, this isn't a democracy. In fact, I never claimed it was.

Welcome to the Republic of the United States of America.

Ah, you missed the boat, Gemini (as did most Americans, unfortunately). I'm not talking about Gore or recounts or hanging chads or any of that nonsense.

First of all, consider this: the margin of error for votes counted in Florida was greater than the number of votes by which Bush supposedly led Gore, even without any tampering.

Now consider that the firm which Florida's then-Secretary of State Kathleen Harris, directed by Jeb Bush, hired a firm called DataBase Technologies (now ChoicePoint, Inc.) to compile a list of voters to be "scrubbed" from the eligibility list due to felony convictions, etc. This isn't unusual, except that for a task that in previous years was carried out by another firm for $5700, Jeb Bush paid them four million dollars. The result was a list of 57,000 (maybe it was the ten-for-a-dollar special?) names to be "scrubbed". Sadly, but not unpredictability, 90% (yes, ninety percent) of the names which found their way onto the list were there by *ahem* mistake, and half of those were black. This may not seem like a big deal until you consider that the black population in Florida had a 65% turnout that year, and 93% of them voted for Gore. I'm no expert, but to me that sounds like somewhere around thirty thousand probable votes for gore that were "mistakenly" dispelled under the direction of Jeb Bush (I've gone and checked and most news sources are going with a more conservative fifteen thousand), which, even after you've counted the probabl votes of the other half of the "scrubbed" voters, would have been more than enough to give Gore a solid (not to mention legitimate) lead.

There's plenty of articles you can Google about this, or it's available in the easily-digested (actually, it made me nauseous) Flash format.

Enjoy.

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

[Edit: Heh, I missed the above two posts while I was typing this one. And working. I swear I do actually work.]

_________________