Liberty Just in Case

A Dialogue for the September 12th World

Gambling for Peace in Reno – A Comment

Posted by zaphriel on March 27, 2006


An Open Letter To Mr. Andrews (And All Other Peace Activists…)

Man that killed me not to say “Peaceniks“… But I want this to be a serious post…

Mr. Andrews,
As is our policy here, and because I have met you face to face, I will not attack you in this post, only your flawed argument. Remember this is solely my opinion.

The original Comment by Mr. Andrews can be found here… for brevities sake a I will only use selected quotes in this post, I have not edited these quotes in any way (except for length), and will attempt to not take them out of context.

DVC00154.JPG“you quoted me incorrectly… but you were close… i personally voted against the slogan that sierra interfaith came up with: support the troops, bring them home. … i argued that a truly antiwar statement wouldn’t include “support the troops” because that means support the war, which i don’t.”

Once again, Mr. Andrews, as in my originating Post, I commend you for being honest. One of my pet peeves about the anti-war movement is the inherent dishonesty in that statement.

” the only war i would have enlisted in was WWII, being Jewish.”

So Euro-Fascism is bad, because it threatened Jews. But Islamo-Fascism, is not worth fighting, even though it is now religious based Fascism, and it still threatens Jews, as well as any other religion that is not Islam.

“every war since then has been all about big corporate interests needing war to sell war industry products… used to be we were fighting the commies… now it’s the war on terrorism. terrorism, that claims thousands of lives every year… but less than those lost from snake bites and lightning strikes. course we cant do anything about those, but we sure can go after terrorists… that is, if we dont keep wasting time, money and lives fighting whole countries when it is clearly terrorist cells that we SHOULD be going after.”

OK, two things. One, I smell a conspiracy theory here, which in and of itself, kills your argument. But I will continue to engage anyway. Second, how do you propose we go after “cells” without host country permissions? Also, as of yet, we have not gone after a single “innocent” nation that was unaware of the terrorist cells within its borders. What we can do is disable those that sponsor terrorism (and yes Iraq sponsored terrorism), and aggressively go after the cells that are within our own borders. Regardless of what you believe now, the prevailing thought at the time of the invasion of Iraq, was that they did have WMD, and did sponsor terrorists. As an added benefit, terrorists, sponsored by other nations, started to stream into Iraq. Thus we are fighting them there, and not here on our streets, which whether you want to believe it or not, is a very distinct possibility if we “cut and run”.

“iraq was clearly no threat to us. there were no WMD, there weren’t even missiles powerful enough to reach israel let alone america.”

Wrong, nice try. SCUD’s and Frog’s both could reach Israel, and they were there in abundance… Nice Try.

BUSH-DC.jpg” it’s truly sickening that you and others can’t understand that loyalty to the office of president doesn’t mean we have to be loyal to the man in that office, when he proves time and again he either doesnt care about anything but his business interests and that of his cronies, or he in too stupid to understand what he’s doing and the consequences of his failures.”

Whoooaaa, there buddy. One, that was real close to a personal attack. Two, loyalty to the office means respectful dissent (I never attacked Clinton personally, even when I did disagree with him, nor did I ever assassinate his character). Three, I would only descent if I felt he was wrong, which to date, given all of the information, and taking into account the available information in context, I have yet to see an action by this president that was purely cronyistic (is that even a word?), or against the interest of America. I defy you or anyone else to prove otherwise.

” if i believe our leader is taking us in the wrong direction and fail to speak up, what kind of man does that make me? i am not a robot.”

Neither am I, Sir, and I resent the implication. Speaking up is one thing, calling the man the largest terrorist of our time is quite another. He’s human, he makes mistakes, but I don’t believe he is headed in the wrong direction by aggressively pursuing terrorism and terrorist sponsors.

PaulSmith4.jpg“if given an order that i consider immoral and illegal, am i to follow that order, because “ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die”? no, i dont think so. you cant order me to torture a prisoner of war and have me obey. you cant order me to fire on unarmed civilians and have me obey. sorry, but that shit just isnt what i was taught growing up in America, the land of the free and home of the brave, matt.”

Neither would I Sir. Nor have I ever, I think your mixing emotions and logic here, you are venting at the wrong person. I think you are trying to imply the abuses at Abu Gharib are the norm, which I know first hand, they are not. Our Military personnel work hard every day to avoid such abuses. It is their duty not to follow unlawful orders and those that do are dealt with. All of those responsible for abuses are being pursued, and several have already been convicted. Our soldiers, however, are human, and bound to make mistakes, they are well trained, but they are not perfect. I defy you, in that environment to pick out the civilians, and be right every time, and oh, by the way, if you’re wrong, you die. Please put your self-righteousness and blatant emotional bias aside and look at this subject logically, or don’t engage me here on my sight.

“i dont know if you’ll see this comment, but you have my email address. feel free to contact me. you were respectful and listened, unlike quite a few people on both sides of that demonstration sunday. i know we share the desire to protect our friends and families from anyone who would take away our precious freedom and rights. we should be able to do that together, not be at each other’s throats.”

I agree, discussion is necessary. I will ask one thing though; bring solutions to the table if you want to be heard. I don’t think the majority of people on “my side” would be so irritated with so many on “your side” if it didn’t feel like you were bitching just because you didn’t get your way three years ago. I have yet to hear a viable alternative solution to the situation we are currently in. Wishing and hoping that things were different will not change what is reality. Let’s move forward from here, since this is where we are. Arguing about where we should be is very counter productive. Tell us, where should we go from here? Bring something to the table, and I’m sure most of us will start to respect you, if not start to agree. No-one WANTS war, especially the warriors, but shying away from it is counter productive.

2 Responses to “Gambling for Peace in Reno – A Comment”

  1. Mark said

    And to think I was gonna post today. After this great post from my partner, I’m just gonna let it stand as my opinion too. Great job Matt!

  2. Matthew said

    Please Mark, chime in on anything I missed. I know I didn’t cover everything.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: