[CLUE-Talk] The military takes a cue from Microsoft

[Randy Arabie]

On Monday, 13 October 2003 at 16:50:52 -0600, Jeff Cann <j.cann at isuma.org> wrote: 
> On Monday 13 October 2003 4:21 pm, Randy Arabie wrote:
> > I'll just consider Dubya "innocent until proven guilty."
> > How about that? 
> 
> Randy I'm not picking on you, but I'm going to use your response to generalize 
> this segment of Americans.  Yes, I can be faulted for this generalization, 
> but stick with me.  

No worries. I try not to take these debates personally ;)

> In a nutshell, some of the folks who support Mr. Bush's decision to liberate 
> Iraq:
> 
> "We think Mr. Bush is a swell guy, so we will believe whatever he tells us".

Well, that just WAY TOO MUCH of a generalization.  How about
if I were to say that, in a nutshell, some folks who are
opposed to Mr. Bush's decision to liberate Iraq do so simply
because they never liked him, they think he "stole the
election" via a the court system, and they will take any
opportunity they have to disagree with any and all policies,
decisions, and actions comming from his administration.

Now, because you said "some of the folks" (i did too), both
statements can be considered faulty generalizations.  So,
where does that get us?

Nowhere.

> Like Randy, other Bush supporters often choose not to provide a reason why 
> they support his decisions and actions.  It makes me wonder whether this 
> segment of Americans actually have any reasons other than 'unless he screws 
> up, we'll take his word for it' (i.e., innocent until proven guilty).  This 
> is certainly a valid position.  However, I happen to disagree fundamentally 
> with it.

Jeff, that is just PURE, UNADULTERATED RUBBISH!  If you had
said "some Bush supporters" I would let that fly.  And, I'll
add that I do take that statement PERSONNALLY. You have in
fact, singled me out, and in essence stated that I support
Bush's decisions and actions without providing reasons.

I don't have time to do the research, and I really shouldn't
have to.  Had you done a quick search of the CLUE-Talk
archives you may have been able to refresh your memory of
why I supported the Bush Administration's decision to go to
war in Iraq.  I can recall at least two lengthy messsages,
and dozens of responses that detail my reasons.

I've never actually expected an appology from anyone on the
list, but I'm gonna have to ask for one on that.  I'm really
suprised that you said that.

> > I suppose some folks don't have a problem doing otherwise.
> 
> I thought as a representative democracy, it is the duty of the governed to 
> question the authority of our leaders (just like the Founding Fathers 
> questioned the authority of their English rulers).  

Jeff, I don't think you understand what my point was.  

How about I make this simple?  You are a liar[1].  I'm
convieniently not going to provide you with a quote of the
lie, I'm just saying that you "lied through your teeth."

Now, give me some facts to prove otherwise.

> This is sometimes taken to to mean we mistrust our leaders.  I don't think of 
> it in terms of trust, but in terms of facts.  Since the facts of the 
> justification of the Iraq war are so controversial, it seems prudent to me to 
> fully consider them.  I think a number of Americans did not consider them at 
> all, much less 'fully consider' them.

I don't disagree with you there.  However, it seems that by
comming to a conclusion that the war was justified I've
become an ostrich.  I guess you can add some quotes from me
to the long list you posted earlier.  Go ahead and give it a
good title, maybe "The Fools Who Believed Dubya."

I find it AMAZING to look back and recall how it was
considered a fact by the vast majority of authorities in
matters of military affairs and intelligence that the Iraqi
regime was continuing thier efforts to produce WMD.  Now,
suddenly folks are all ready to accept that it was all a lie
fabricated by Dubya and his War Hawks.

You mentioned earlier that the facts justifiying the war
are contorversial.  Let me expand on that a little.

I believe these are facts:

 - the Iraqi regime had active WMD programs and therefore
 were in violation of numerous UN Resolutions,
 - Iraq was a supporter of known terrorist organizations.

The controversial part is whether or not those facts were
justification for the going to war against them.  Did this
combination of circumstances present a threat to the
national security of the United States and our allies? 

If we were simply questioning that aspect of the issue, then
I would be much more understanding of those who disagree
with the Bush adminstrations decision. I agree that this
aspect, actually answering the question I posed above, IS
VERY controversial.  I think a reasonable arguement could
be made both for AND against the war.

However, when I read some of the posts from those who have
opposed the Bush administrations actions, I rarely see the
opposition presented in such a manner.  It seems that many
of you actually do doubt one, or both, of the facts I
presented above.

> So, what's inherently wrong with questioning your leaders?  Why not make them 
> justify their decisions which they are making on your behalf?  We're not just 
> observers of the government and our elected officials.  We need to take 
> responsibility for their actions because we elected them.  It's our right and 
> our duty as American citizens.

There is nothing wrong with it.  I'm sorry if you, and
others, think that I believe there is something wrong with
questioning our leaders.  I don't.  I just prefer to see
people explain what they mean, and provide a little detail,
when they rant about our President...you know, the
son-of-a-bitch who lied through his teeth.
-- 

Allons Rouler!

Randy
http://www.arabie.org/

[1] - I don't really think Jeff is a liar.  I just said that
to make a point.