TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Reagan's Viewing
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 How is this protecting their own? What the hell makes it "theirs"?

The military takes ownership of their soldiers and sailors, dead or alive. It's just how they operate, and not something you question.

quote:

Does the public not have a right to visually see the caskets of the slain? Let's keep in mind that we're not talking open caskets here - they are flag draped with high regard to respect. So in all seriousness, who is overreacting here in regards to showing the fallen soldiers?

From the DOD's perspective, they will choose the display of their dead in the context of their choosing. A violation of that will not go unabated (which it wasn't. that is what we are ultimately discussing). It's as simple as that. To hypothisize beyond that is your choosing, not mine.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Hey maybe to really see the cost of war they should show the body parts and limbs too on tv and maybe make a traveling circus show of the dead bodies so we can smell and taste death in our mouths and see it firsthand as their families weep. Then we can parade the grieving families around too...

Equating a flag-draped coffin to exhibiting blown-up body parts is quite a flawed stretch of an argument, don't you think? I had respectfully drawn a line between these two vastly different images already, why are you merely repeating my statement?

quote:

The whole point of that argument doesn't cut it because the photos weren't taken at a burial ceremony where they would have been legal, grieving families and all, but they were taking the photos in an ILLEGAL place as deemed by law and the person commiting the crime should be punished. That was the whole point of that rediculous fiasco.

Incorrect. There was nothing illegial about obtaining those pictures:

quote:

Under a White House directive, the press has not been permitted to photograph the return of such coffins for more than a year. But last week 361 images of military coffins being returned to Dover air force base in Delaware were released to an internet news site under the Freedom of Information Act The images the White House wanted to censor were obtained by Russ Kick, from Tucson, Arizona, who runs a website called The Memory Hole (www.thememoryhole.org) and who filed a Freedom of Information Act application. Air force officials denied the request but decided to release the photos after Mr Kick appealed against their decision. Mr Kick was unavailable for comment yesterday, but on his website he wrote: "These are the images that the Pentagon prevented the public from seeing." http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=514700

By "ridiculous fiasco" do you mean the Freedom of Information Act? Should we ban that altogether? I'm sure Bush would love to at this point in his tenure, but I doubt he would gain much Congressional support on the matter (even from Conservatives).

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Shakka you really don't even know how to logically argue a position. Just in the span of a short paragraph you contradict yourself "war isn't about death...Death is part of war". What happened did you get the conservative fortune cookies you were writing from mixed up? Maybe you should go fight in a war before extolling its virtues.

How have I contradicted myself? Seems like you thought you might get away with a cheap flame. Let's see...NASCAR isn't about car wrecks, however car wrecks are certainly part of NASCAR. Uh, Hockey isn't about fighting, however fights are certainly part of hockey. A component doesn't constitute a primary reason. Geez, you're a real whiz.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew like oil? sorry was just too obvious

Har har. I was thinking more along the lines of humanitarian, political, and sure, economic reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka How have I contradicted myself? Seems like you thought you might get away with a cheap flame. Let's see...NASCAR isn't about car wrecks, however car wrecks are certainly part of NASCAR. Uh, Hockey isn't about fighting, however fights are certainly part of hockey. A component doesn't constitute a primary reason. Geez, you're a real whiz.

Yes but chrashes and fights are the most fun and expected parts of those sports.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Equating a flag-draped coffin to exhibiting blown-up body parts is quite a flawed stretch of an argument, don't you think? I had respectfully drawn a line between these two vastly different images already, why are you merely repeating my statement? Incorrect. There was nothing illegial about obtaining those pictures: By "ridiculous fiasco" do you mean the Freedom of Information Act? Should we ban that altogether? I'm sure Bush would love to at this point in his tenure, but I doubt he would gain much Congressional support on the matter (even from Conservatives).

Not repeating your statement, merely offering sarcasm at your flawed stretch of an argument as well.

Was illegal according to the job. If I take photos of certain things or in certain places at my job I will get fired as well because there is a lot of sensitive info. Its one of the laws of the job.

Freedom of Information doesn't apply in this case because there was a set rule in the job by the government that prohibits the taking of photos in areas deemed sensitive. You can read the part of the FOIA below.

quote:

This section does not apply to matters that are - (1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order; (2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency; (3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; (4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; (5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency; (6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka How have I contradicted myself? Seems like you thought you might get away with a cheap flame. Let's see...NASCAR isn't about car wrecks, however car wrecks are certainly part of NASCAR. Uh, Hockey isn't about fighting, however fights are certainly part of hockey. A component doesn't constitute a primary reason. Geez, you're a real whiz.

Let me have a go at it...

Shakka isn't about logic, however Logic is certainly not about Shakka

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Let me have a go at it... Shakka isn't about logic, however Logic is certainly not about Shakka

Mabye you should read your own signature.

"Life is the game. Love is the goal. Death is the price." Would you care to expound or would you prefer to stand idly by and look like a hypocrite?

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Yes but chrashes and fights are the most fun and expected parts of those sports.

Sure, but I never made any contradictions. You expect certain things, but that doesn't mean it's the main objective.

Shakka you should try this on for size...

*cracks open a fortune cookie*

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
- Samuel Johnson, 7 April 1775

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Not repeating your statement, merely offering sarcasm at your flawed stretch of an argument as well.

How was my argument flawed? Again, I am stating that I believe it is necessary to see the downsides of war, albeit in a respectful manner, as much as it is to see all the wonderful positives this war is supposedly going to bring us.

Please explain how this is a flawed argument.

quote:

Was illegal according to the job. If I take photos of certain things or in certain places at my job I will get fired as well because there is a lot of sensitive info. Its one of the laws of the job. Freedom of Information doesn't apply in this case because there was a set rule in the job by the government that prohibits the taking of photos in areas deemed sensitive. You can read the part of the FOIA below.

Then let's be clear - the photos have been censured by a White House initiative. They were then illegally released BY THE GOVERNMENT to the internet news site under the FOI Act. Whether or not FOI lawfully applies is therefore not the issue, rather the act of the military illegally allowing those pictures to be given to the press is now the issue.

So if FOI doesn't legally apply, fine. I'm good with that, so long as you're good with the fact that the government illegally handed over the pictures in the first place (i.e. didn't read carefully where the FOI doesn't strictly apply). Therefore, the responsibility for this whole mess lies squarely onto the military.

But truthfully, this is really a minor quibble to my central argument - why the hell did the President feel it's necessary to hide pictures of the caskets of fallen soldiers? Even though, as Shakka suggested, picture taking of soldiers' caskets has been discouraged in previous wars, there was never an order to restrict the press from doing so. This is precisely my point, and my conclusion follows: Bush knows and understands that his decision for this war has split the country decisively. What's more, the popularity for war has decreased dramatically. Therefore, he believes it would only do more harm than good for his increasingly unpopular war to shed our eyes from the dire consequences of this WAR OF CHOICE. Of course Dubya may simply just be listening to his mother, when she spoke on March 18, two days before the U.S. invasion, with ABC-TV's Diane Sawyer:

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

But I sincerely doubt it. I believe that, similar to every other negativity that has been brought out on this war, this Administration is simply trying to keep this issue away from public viewing.

And I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "protecting their own" line from Q5echo either. Of course I can understand the DOD protecting their men and women, but what on earth are they protecting them from? The public? My God, what on earth is the public going to do that would be a detriment to flag-draped caskets of slain men, other than honor them and/or be angry with this Administration for putting these individual's lives at steak over a war of choice?

The public is not the enemy here. I fail to see how the public could harm or do a disservice to these honorable men and women who fight and die for their country. It seems that once again the Conservatives are almost trying to turn and equate a Progressive dissenting voice with this Administration's decision with the men and women whom are called to fight as a result of that decision. That is clearly wrong.

Is the media the enemy, as Shakka might be eluding to, at least in the sense of sensationalism? Perhaps. No doubt there was a great deal of sensationalism for that week in April when the pictures of the caskets were released. But this begs the question - would there have been so much sensationalism had there been an censure order by this Administration in the first place? I suspect not. In fact, one may argue that the public may have accepted these flag-draped casket pictures with a little more ease had their not been a gag-order.

Finally, it is well known that this Administration has a propensity for secrecy. Of course one my argue that much of that secrecy is a direct result of fighting terrorism, which I would agree to a certain extent. However, this Administration has overstepped those boundaries time and again, and the public is correctly becoming increasingly suspicious of their activities. This picture incident only aroused the public (and Press') suspicions, which again may be attributed, in part, to the Administration's notions of secrecy.

So overall, I do of course put partial blame the Press for their predictable sensationalism, but the bulk of the blame I put squarely on the shoulders of this Administration.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Shakka you should try this on for size... *cracks open a fortune cookie* "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson, 7 April 1775

So we've moved on to the ad-homenim attacks? How's that go? When all else fails, try to attack a person's character to win a debate?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So we've moved on to the ad-homenim attacks? How's that go? When all else fails, try to attack a person's character to win a debate?

If the ad-hominem (sp?) fits...

If I may intervene, I do believe Shakka's point about ad hominems is appropriate. I'm no saint here, and I'm sure as hell not a moderator, but a good debate is always best without logical fallacies getting in the way.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 If I may intervene, I do believe Shakka's point about ad hominems is appropriate. I'm no saint here, and I'm sure as hell not a moderator, but a good debate is always best without logical fallacies getting in the way.

I'm sorry I could help comment on his glib statements on war... war is about death but death isn't about war. Huh? I just find it irritating the off-handed way people spout off about the virtues of war when they have never fought it one. They also seem to be experts in what acceptable when it comes to war, like taking pictures of flag draped caskets. Was this some deeply held belief you have always held or are you just simply repeating political rhetoric you herd on CNN.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow I'm sorry I could help comment on his glib statements on war... war is about death but death isn't about war. Huh? I just find it irritating the off-handed way people spout off about the virtues of war when they have never fought it one. They also seem to be experts in what acceptable when it comes to war, like taking pictures of flag draped caskets. Was this some deeply held belief you have always held or are you just simply repeating political rhetoric you herd on CNN.

Thanks for misquoting me. I never said "War is about Death". I believe my exact, verbatim quote was

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka War isn't about death, war is about idealogical differences that can't be reconciled by diplomatic means. Not to mention countless other reasons. Death is part of war, though.

Furthermore, I don't generally watch CNN. Ever heard the phrase, "If you find yourself in hole, stop digging!"? Would you care to enlighten me about your own personal combat experience?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Would you care to enlighten me about your own personal combat experience?

Sure I'd be more than happy to answer that question. I've never fought in a war and I would never fight in one unless it involves repelling an invading army. So that's why I don't advocate using war for other reasons. *cough* oil

Now let me ask you what qualifies you to speak of the virtues of war and what makes you an expert about what war is? If you're so gun hoe why don't you sign up for military service and request to do a tour of duty in the frontlines of Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Now let me ask you what qualifies you to speak of the virtues of war and what makes you an expert about what war is? If you're so gun hoe why don't you sign up for military service and request to do a tour of duty in the frontlines of Iraq.

It honestly doesn't matter because I'm not the one who made the statement in the first place. You essentially made the claim when you said "I just find it irritating the off-handed way people spout off about the virtues of war when they have never fought it one." when you yourself have no combat experience. Don't pretend to be an expert when you have nothing to stand on. Whether I have combat experience or not is irrelevant. I never claimed any. You are trying to win a debate based on assumptions instead of producing any real argument. You've resorted to name calling and have never made any compelling argument that I was contradicting myself when I said that war is not about death, but that death is indeed a component of war. Your best option would be to stop digging right about 4 posts ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Whether I have combat experience or not is irrelevant. I never claimed any. You are trying to win a debate based on assumptions instead of producing any real argument.

You brought it up by asking me my military experience. How is the same question you posed to me irrelevant when asked of you? Why do you support a war you're not willing to fight in? It's hypocritical to ask someone else to risk his or her life to fight for something you are unwilling to do yourself. They have a name for people like that...

Chickenhawk

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow You brought it up by asking me my military experience. How is the same question you posed to me irrelevant when asked of you? Why do you support a war you're not willing to fight in? It's hypocritical to ask someone else to risk his or her life to fight for something you are unwilling to do yourself. They have a name for people like that... Chickenhawk

Wow. There you go with the name-calling again. Saying it louder doesn't make any further points either.

I never said I was unwilling to fight in a war--please show me the quote where I said that?

It is irrelevant with respect to me because I never argued a single point from the perspective of one who has combat experience, whereas you explicitly said, "I just find it irritating the off-handed way people spout off about the virtues of war when they have never fought it one." which implies that you somehow have insight into this topic from a combat situation. I have continued to defend my position(and it's a very simple one) that war is not about death, but that death is surely a component of war. Put in other words, the point of war is not to see who can inflict the most casualties. Quite the contrary I'd say that it would be more accurate(particularly in modern times) to say that the objective of a war is generally to inflict minimal casualties while getting your opposition to capitulate. I'm not even going to stoop to your level of name calling because I don't have to.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I never said I was unwilling to fight in a war--please show me the quote where I said that?

Then military.com/Recruiting/ or STFU

let us know when you get to Iraq

well, back to the thread at hand... i believe the president's funeral is on today. it's been an intresting week as far as television goes, with all the specials and all. regardless of the love or hate expressed during his presidency, its strange to think that one of the most respected figures in modern american politics is being put to rest. how time flies. i'd love to set up a love him or hate him debate thread, but i feel this one should grant him the earned respect of just honoring his life.

rip gipper

edit: it shouldn't matter if he's in the coffin or not, mourners should be allowed a symbol for the mourning.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Then military.com/Recruiting/ or STFU let us know when you get to Iraq

I fail to see how your argument is any more compelling by attempting to bait me into a flame war.

Ok Mr. Storm, can we all move on from this quibble between you two?



Sheesh!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.