Quote:
Originally posted by seriousfun
...Two opposing thoughts. In context, if we can listen to Charlie Daniels as well as Natalie Maines, we might then be able to think for ourselves...
|
… what an interesting notion. One wonders what this conjecture hints about the thought processes of the overwhelming majority of people on the earth who are unfamiliar with the political views expressed by Mr. Daniels or Ms. Maines. Are the thoughts of these people invalid? Do these people have no thoughts on the subject, or should they wait for someone else to provide them with their thoughts?
Quote:
Originally posted by seriousfun
The point is that political dissent is allowed, protected, and should be cherished and defended (even fought for!).
|
I must admit, I did not anticipate such wholehearted support for the goals of the coalition – to liberate the people of Iraq, from the despot who has tyrannized them for the last 24 years, and to replace the regime that has used weapons of mass destruction (chemical, poison gas)
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0830-07.htm
on its Kurdish civilian political dissidents with a political order that permits of the political diversity which you claim should be cherished and defended. It would seem that we share the belief that the political discourse we enjoy here is worth fighting for.
Quote:
Originally posted by seriousfun
Cheney and Rumsfeld have lied lied lied to us time and time again over the last few weeks, which to me constitutes an egregious distortion of their right to free speech, considering that they are appointed officials of our government, and that deaths, both of combatants and civilians, have resulted from their words.
|
Messrs. Cheney and Rumsfeld probably view their opnions in a different light than do you, though possibly with less passion. If, as you correctly (IMO) assert, free speech should be curtailed only when absolutely necessary, then why withdraw this constitutionally protected behavior just because one of the men is the Vice President of the United States and the US Senate confirmed the other in his position as Secretary of Defense?
As to the responsibility for deaths, permit me to refer to an article by the American Federation of Scientists, "Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)"
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm
"Casualty figures are highly uncertain, though estimates suggest more than one and a half million war and war-related casualties -- perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded, and millions were made refugees. Iraq's victory was not without cost. The Iraqis suffered an estimated 375,000 casualties, the equivalent of 5.6 million for a population the size of the United States. Another 60,000 were taken prisoner by the Iranians. Iran's losses may have included more than 1 million people killed or maimed. The war claimed at least 300,000 Iranian lives and injured more than 500,000, out of a total population which by the war's end was nearly 60 million."
That war was initiated by Iraq under the leadership of the regime which is on its way out.