ot: Colin Powell

[Kilohana]

The bottom line is that the “Obama’s Shady Past” narrative was created out of the need to distract voters and candidates from discussing the real issues… Hillary tried it and failed – and now McCain has made it the centerpiece of his campaign.

In fact, McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis explained it all perfectly:

“John McCain tried to point out how people should be informed about Barack Obama’s background, including his relationships with domestic terrorists like William Ayers. People are going to form these judgments. It’s great fodder for us to debate every day. I think it’s fun,”

Fun!

I’m sure there will again be skeptics calling me on my lies so here’s a link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8G6dDVjW6c :54 seconds in.

Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?

[massey]

[quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews.

[massey]

[quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews.

[massey]

[quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews.

[massey]

[quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews.

[massey]

[quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Kilohana]
Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I am a history lover, and yes, the context of those quotes most definiatley does matter. Slavery did have some positive merits. I wont say there were any for those who were enslaved, but for those who were not there were some. To fully understand slavery, and the civil war which ended it, you must understand why people were willing to put their lives on the line to continue slavery. We cannot and must not judge the past upon todays morals. That is revisonist and uninstightful. We dont judge tribes in the Amazon by London standards, and that is about the same reasoning to look back 160 years and use today’s logic.
An “acceptable” context would be to understand today’s roots of racism and how to combat it. Most whites were little better economically than many blacks in the pre-civil war south. However, They were “free” men, and better than the black slaves for it, and were willing to die for it. I fully believe we cannot understand modern racism without abject analysis of this time, and that includes the context in which they thought.
There is no jusdication for the praising a murder. Ever. But it can help to understand why they were driven to murder. That is where my hair stood up. The man deserved nothing but analysis and condemination. I hope by learning from what happened we can avoid it happening again.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Kilohana]
Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I am a history lover, and yes, the context of those quotes most definiatley does matter. Slavery did have some positive merits. I wont say there were any for those who were enslaved, but for those who were not there were some. To fully understand slavery, and the civil war which ended it, you must understand why people were willing to put their lives on the line to continue slavery. We cannot and must not judge the past upon todays morals. That is revisonist and uninstightful. We dont judge tribes in the Amazon by London standards, and that is about the same reasoning to look back 160 years and use today’s logic.
An “acceptable” context would be to understand today’s roots of racism and how to combat it. Most whites were little better economically than many blacks in the pre-civil war south. However, They were “free” men, and better than the black slaves for it, and were willing to die for it. I fully believe we cannot understand modern racism without abject analysis of this time, and that includes the context in which they thought.
There is no jusdication for the praising a murder. Ever. But it can help to understand why they were driven to murder. That is where my hair stood up. The man deserved nothing but analysis and condemination. I hope by learning from what happened we can avoid it happening again.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Kilohana]
Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I am a history lover, and yes, the context of those quotes most definiatley does matter. Slavery did have some positive merits. I wont say there were any for those who were enslaved, but for those who were not there were some. To fully understand slavery, and the civil war which ended it, you must understand why people were willing to put their lives on the line to continue slavery. We cannot and must not judge the past upon todays morals. That is revisonist and uninstightful. We dont judge tribes in the Amazon by London standards, and that is about the same reasoning to look back 160 years and use today’s logic.
An “acceptable” context would be to understand today’s roots of racism and how to combat it. Most whites were little better economically than many blacks in the pre-civil war south. However, They were “free” men, and better than the black slaves for it, and were willing to die for it. I fully believe we cannot understand modern racism without abject analysis of this time, and that includes the context in which they thought.
There is no jusdication for the praising a murder. Ever. But it can help to understand why they were driven to murder. That is where my hair stood up. The man deserved nothing but analysis and condemination. I hope by learning from what happened we can avoid it happening again.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Kilohana]
Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I am a history lover, and yes, the context of those quotes most definiatley does matter. Slavery did have some positive merits. I wont say there were any for those who were enslaved, but for those who were not there were some. To fully understand slavery, and the civil war which ended it, you must understand why people were willing to put their lives on the line to continue slavery. We cannot and must not judge the past upon todays morals. That is revisonist and uninstightful. We dont judge tribes in the Amazon by London standards, and that is about the same reasoning to look back 160 years and use today’s logic.
An “acceptable” context would be to understand today’s roots of racism and how to combat it. Most whites were little better economically than many blacks in the pre-civil war south. However, They were “free” men, and better than the black slaves for it, and were willing to die for it. I fully believe we cannot understand modern racism without abject analysis of this time, and that includes the context in which they thought.
There is no jusdication for the praising a murder. Ever. But it can help to understand why they were driven to murder. That is where my hair stood up. The man deserved nothing but analysis and condemination. I hope by learning from what happened we can avoid it happening again.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Kilohana]
Yes, the Rush quotes were real. Does context really matter when the the topic is the so-called merits of slavery? How about praising the assassin of an American icon and Civil Rights leader? Is there *any* context in which this would be appropriate?

Is this type of dialogue good for America? Is this really who we are?[/quote]

I am a history lover, and yes, the context of those quotes most definiatley does matter. Slavery did have some positive merits. I wont say there were any for those who were enslaved, but for those who were not there were some. To fully understand slavery, and the civil war which ended it, you must understand why people were willing to put their lives on the line to continue slavery. We cannot and must not judge the past upon todays morals. That is revisonist and uninstightful. We dont judge tribes in the Amazon by London standards, and that is about the same reasoning to look back 160 years and use today’s logic.
An “acceptable” context would be to understand today’s roots of racism and how to combat it. Most whites were little better economically than many blacks in the pre-civil war south. However, They were “free” men, and better than the black slaves for it, and were willing to die for it. I fully believe we cannot understand modern racism without abject analysis of this time, and that includes the context in which they thought.
There is no jusdication for the praising a murder. Ever. But it can help to understand why they were driven to murder. That is where my hair stood up. The man deserved nothing but analysis and condemination. I hope by learning from what happened we can avoid it happening again.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cvk][quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews. [/quote]
Okay but gas chambers are a far cry from following US rules of engagement (as a soldier) let alone debating your boss on dealing with a country you think has WMD’s (as a civilian adminstrator).

For the record: I can’t believe you have me defending the Iraq war.

I mean you can’t advise soldiers that they are paid to kill and that they will be charged for following orders. You just have to say when some types of killing are inappropriate and out of bounds.

Similarly, the dude towed the party line as an administrator (which was his job) and then quit when it got sufficiently bad (which is appropriate in an administrative position). The only valid criticism I see here is that he did his job by towing the line and then not quitting soon enough.

Again, I can’t believe you are putting me in a situation to defend a pro-war position.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cvk][quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews. [/quote]
Okay but gas chambers are a far cry from following US rules of engagement (as a soldier) let alone debating your boss on dealing with a country you think has WMD’s (as a civilian adminstrator).

For the record: I can’t believe you have me defending the Iraq war.

I mean you can’t advise soldiers that they are paid to kill and that they will be charged for following orders. You just have to say when some types of killing are inappropriate and out of bounds.

Similarly, the dude towed the party line as an administrator (which was his job) and then quit when it got sufficiently bad (which is appropriate in an administrative position). The only valid criticism I see here is that he did his job by towing the line and then not quitting soon enough.

Again, I can’t believe you are putting me in a situation to defend a pro-war position.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cvk][quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews. [/quote]
Okay but gas chambers are a far cry from following US rules of engagement (as a soldier) let alone debating your boss on dealing with a country you think has WMD’s (as a civilian adminstrator).

For the record: I can’t believe you have me defending the Iraq war.

I mean you can’t advise soldiers that they are paid to kill and that they will be charged for following orders. You just have to say when some types of killing are inappropriate and out of bounds.

Similarly, the dude towed the party line as an administrator (which was his job) and then quit when it got sufficiently bad (which is appropriate in an administrative position). The only valid criticism I see here is that he did his job by towing the line and then not quitting soon enough.

Again, I can’t believe you are putting me in a situation to defend a pro-war position.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cvk][quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews. [/quote]
Okay but gas chambers are a far cry from following US rules of engagement (as a soldier) let alone debating your boss on dealing with a country you think has WMD’s (as a civilian adminstrator).

For the record: I can’t believe you have me defending the Iraq war.

I mean you can’t advise soldiers that they are paid to kill and that they will be charged for following orders. You just have to say when some types of killing are inappropriate and out of bounds.

Similarly, the dude towed the party line as an administrator (which was his job) and then quit when it got sufficiently bad (which is appropriate in an administrative position). The only valid criticism I see here is that he did his job by towing the line and then not quitting soon enough.

Again, I can’t believe you are putting me in a situation to defend a pro-war position.

[Author]

Posts