[Vision2020] Tony's logic and soldier support

[keely emerinemix]

Yep, I'm assuming that Tony likely won't suddenly offer a lucid, articulate, 
moral and reasoned argument for this war.  Lord knows no one else can, least 
of all those who chose to begin it.

keely


From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Tony's logic and soldier support
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:10:37 -0800

Keely,

The next time Tony offers a well-argued post will be the first time.  I note
with some amazement his recent protests to ad hominum attacks.  Perhaps
Irony Inc. has chosen him as a spokesman. Apparently he opposes what he
calls ad hominum attacks on him; the rest of the time he embraces them.

Since he won't go fight there himself, I'd like to see him offer a
thoughtful defense of the Iraq war.  I look forward to reading a defense of
our privatization of Iraq's oil, and the building of long-term bases.  I'd
like to see him coherently explain the different rationales offered for the
war, and defend them.

That would be asking too much.  As offal predictably slides down a sewer
line, so will the Tiger holler that he doesn't have to explain anything to
anyone.  Like Biff Tannen he'll bluster around, yelling in our faces and
like the neighborhood bully will challenge others to fight; after all, he's
quite a man.  We know, he tells us every five minutes.

What he won't do is say something meaningful.  Nor will he substantiate any
of his claims.

Sunil


 >From: "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
 >To: tonytime at clearwire.net, privatejf32 at hotmail.com
 >CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
 >Subject: [Vision2020] Tony's logic and soldier support
 >Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:13:19 -0800
 >
 >Tony's attempt at logic, below, is deeply flawed.
 >
 >He compares civilian support for law enforcement and the condemnation cops
 >could theoretically heap on folks for being too "cowardly" to serve on the
 >police force with vets' dismissal of non-veterans who crow loudly about 
the
 >righteousness of wars they don't serve in.  It's a false comparison,
 >though.  Very few people have any reservations about the establishment and
 >duties  of police, firefighters, and other law enforcement/protection
 >personnel.  It's a given that in any community, some will be cops, some
 >will be bakers, some will write for newspapers, a few will work in
 >factories, and others will care for kids full time.  The presence of law
 >enforcement is commonly seen as a universal good, but that good would be a
 >promised unfulfilled if everyone decided to show their support of it by
 >joining the force.
 >
 >A war, on the other hand, is not seen by all as a universal good,
 >particularly the US war in Iraq.  Further, it is indisputably more harmful
 >to psyche and to body to serve on the front lines; it is infinitely safer
 >to advocate for war with full vigor while not serving in capacities that
 >not only invite great and ever-present danger, but also require a surplus
 >of willing participants.  Police forces generally require set numbers of
 >armed personnel.  War seems to require steady numbers of willing soldiers
 >to enable further conquest and replenish the numbers of those lost in
 >combat, and Chuck Kovis' point that it's easy to rally for war by
 >"supporting the troops" while avoiding combat is an important one.
 >
 >I don't know Chuck Kovis, but hope someday to meet him.  I don't know 
Tony,
 >either, and if the pleasure were indefinitely postponed, I'd be OK with
 >that.  Nonetheless, arguing that Chuck's point is formed from bitterness
 >and cynicism and not from a skepticism well-earned does absolutely no
 >justice to whatever point he wishes to make.
 >
 >keely
 >
 >


=======================================================
  List services made available by First Step Internet,
  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                http://www.fsr.net
           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
>From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has 
it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline1