Last thoughts on Woody Guthrie

RatBastard wrote:


#1 putting military in harms way is (always) for no good reason.

I will go over them step by step but they are big questions..and thank you for raising them..

Name the last time we put the military in a war for a good reason?…. limited UN or NATO missions such as Kosovo I could argue get a pass so please don't bring these up but where are all these good examples of worthwhile wars?

Would you argue that World War I was a good use of American lives? How about World War II? Ever imagine what would have happened to the Soviet Union if we had not interfered on their side? How about Iraq? How is that going?

The last worthwhile war I can think of was the US-Mexican War because at least we stole most of the western United States out of it and hey we all like California.. Certainly the War of 1812 was worthwhile and maybe the one clearcut example since independence of fighting for our "freedom"… but other than those notable exceptions not sure there are that many examples…..Fighting a war over the Phillipines???? Once we won we had no earthly idea what to do.. I'm sure we'll agree that Grenada was not a war…Korea? Did we actually accomplish anything there? I think its pretty much agreed nothing ended up changing there…other than the bodies we left on the ground that is…

?We must openly acknowledge past mistakes, and learn from them, because that is how we avoid repeating them…We must always question our policies that send our citizens to war, because our nation?s policies must always be worthy of the sacrifices we ask of the men and women who defend our country." – Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, November 11, 2014.

RatBastard wrote:

Julian, wrote:

Sidehatch wrote:
I know
and are the ones with 4 dots more important than the ones with 3 dots?

A four dot "ellipsis" indicates that the omitted material included at least one full sentence.

The ellipses is made up of three SPACED ellipses points.  When used at the end of a sentence, a fourth ellipses point is used to indicate the period at the end of the sentence and there is no space between the last word of the sentence and the first ellipses point.  That is what I recall anyway!

That's correct.

hey one in four or one in three homeless men are veterans but what the fuck we honor their service and clap for them at ballgames… and post nice things about them on facebook..


http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jan/01/texas-veterans-commission/veterans-commission-representative-says-one-three-/

Are you implying that the homeless can't have facebook? Because that's just ignorant.

I'll just leave this here.


And yeah, everything Hutch said.

When Dave Grohl took the stage with Zac Brown I was hoping it was for this, but that probably wouldn't have been appropriate for the occasion. 

I find it remarkably odd that the US wars you cite as somewhat justifiable are the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War.  WWII was about lots of things, the least of which was to stop a holocaust- our sitting idly by while Hitler murdered undesirables, while Rwanda happened, while Serbs massacred Bosnians, if stepping in to stop these from happening is wrong, then I am truly sorry for you.

"the good man should be both a strong and a brave man; that is, he should be able to fight, he should be able to serve his country as a soldier, if the need arises. There are well-meaning philosophers who declaim against the unrighteousness of war. They are right only if they lay all their emphasis upon the unrighteousness. War is a dreadful thing, and unjust war is a crime against humanity. But it is such a crime because it is unjust, not because it is a war. The choice must ever be in favor of righteousness, and this is whether the alternative be peace or whether the alternative be war. The question must not be merely, Is there to be peace or war? The question must be, Is it right to prevail? Are the great laws of righteousness once more to be fulfilled? And the answer from a strong and virile people must be "Yes," whatever the cost. Every honorable effort should always be made to avoid war, just as every honorable effort should always be made by the individual in private life to keep out of a brawl, to keep out of trouble; but no self-respecting individual, no self-respecting nation, can or ought to submit to wrong."  Theodore Roosevelt

ggw wrote:
When Dave Grohl took the stage with Zac Brown I was hoping it was for this, but that probably wouldn't have been appropriate for the occasion. 

fortunate son is just as blatantly anti-war and anti-patriotism but it made the cut somehow

gaaaaaaaaah wrote:

ggw wrote:
When Dave Grohl took the stage with Zac Brown I was hoping it was for this, but that probably wouldn't have been appropriate for the occasion. 

fortunate son is just as blatantly anti-war and anti-patriotism but it made the cut somehow

Nah, Fortunate Son is pro-soldier, so it can't be anti-patriotic.

but its about how the people who promote war arent the ones who have to fight it. doesnt really jive with the whole rah rah patriotism thing at all.

its not anti soldier but its weird that it made the cut to play at that concert

i didnt watch so i have no clue how it was received in person

I thought the event was supposed to be for the soldiers and veterans, and not rah rah patriotism.

And shouldn't you be complaining about Born in the USA, too?

im not complaining. fortunate son's one of my all time favorite songs. i love that they played it, im just surprised they were allowed

gaaaaaaaaah wrote:
im not complaining. fortunate son's one of my all time favorite songs. i love that they played it, im just surprised they were allowed

Of course they were allowed.  That's what makes America great.

Their banning anti-war stickers and shirts and allowing "Fortunate Son" to be played doesn't make that much sense.


Also, Metallica didn't play "One?"

Woody Guthrie was a big supporter of free speech, right?

Bravo to Hutch for stating opinions in this thread that many people in America would disagree with. The great thing in America is that you can express your opinion, even if it?s an unpopular one, right? And as long as you?re not threatening anyone, you?re allowed to state it.

That?s actually not true in some places. In Afghanistan, if you point out flaws in Islam, you face blasphemy charges.

http://www.rferl.org/content/afghan-blasphemy-case-an-early-test-for-new-government/26654627.html


In Saudi Arabia, if you point out the flaws in Islam, you get a 10 year jail sentence and 1,000 lashes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27318400


In Pakistan, they kill you.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/11/26/pakistan-blasphemy/19019805/


In Indonesia, they jail you.

http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/report-shows-a-surge-in-indonesian-convictions-for-blasphemy-27380

Even in secular Turkey, they'll imprison you.

http://www.crossmap.com/news/noted-convert-from-islam-in-egypt-wins-partial-appeal-but-remains-in-jail-15293

In fact, blasphemy laws exist in every Muslim-majority country ( but only is the blasphemy is against Islam.)

On the 9:30 Forum, they call you a "bigot", then ban you from posting. (hopefully this public library IP address won't receive a ban).


I read this comment on another forum, and completely agree?


The ability to criticize religion is at the core of freedom of speech, and no religion is exempt, much to the chagrin of scientologists and muslims everywhere. They can practice whatever religion they want, that's freedom of religion, including things like salt water and fresh water cannot be mixed together or that meteors that fall from the sky are signs from God, but others (should, in America) have a right to criticize and even mock them for those beliefs. And when those beliefs become downright dangerous, like killing those who decide to leave the religion, or killing women who have been raped as well as killing women who protect themselves from rapists, criticizing such practices becomes not just tolerable, but necessary.


Some liberals are arguably no longer liberal. Some have become totalitarian in their mindset. They want to control others and use censorship as a tool for control. Hopefully there are still true liberals out there who believe that protecting individual freedoms is more important than protecting the rights of groups whose beliefs seek to stifle those freedoms.

For a much more interesting take on this than I could possible write, please read this essay by Rizvi Ali.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/the-phobia-of-being-calle_b_5215218.html

Space wrote:
Bravo to Hutch for stating opinions

Three posts in and I'm already telling you to get the hell out of here.

[glow=red,2,300][glow=red,2,300][move]Ghost of James Ford?   8)[/move]

I'm going to check the email used to sign up for the account thru common websites this afternoon if I have time.