Dan Rather, Apologist

[Setheus]

Who here has served in the armed forces...(any branch) and actually seen combat? If you have not, then shut up about it. If so, please continue since you have a clue about what these men may or maynot have been trying to dodge.

Setheus-Gulf War toPresent.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Seth -- Sorry, pal, that's not the way things are done in a democracy. We talk about anything we bloody well please, and while you have a unique perspective by reason of your service, and deserve our thanks, you don't get the field to yourself in debating any question, whether it involves war or peace.

We don't restrict discussion of the law to lawyers, or of literature to published authors. Since you've (apparently) seen combat for yourself, you can give us your perspective, which we probably ought to give extra weight -- but that's as far as it goes.

Leaving discussion of war to the warriors is something out of a Heinlein novel, not a republic. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt presided, respectively, over the two bloodiest wars in American history. Neither of them ever saw combat.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 21 2004, 12:40 PM

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt presided, respectively, over the two bloodiest wars in American history.  Neither of them ever saw combat.

<span style=\'font-family:Courier\'>Perhaps those conflicts might have been less bloody if they had had a more personal sense of killing other human beings.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Traci+Sep 21 2004, 05:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traci @ Sep 21 2004, 05:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Sep 21 2004, 12:40 PM

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt presided, respectively, over the two bloodiest wars in American history.  Neither of them ever saw combat.

<span style=\'font-family:Courier\'>Perhaps those conflicts might have been less bloody if they had had a more personal sense of killing other human beings.

Umm . . . right.

I doubt Hitler and Tojo would have seen the error of their ways and lain down with lambs if only FDR had had some combat experience to teach him sensitivity.

And I sort of doubt that those two guys' military experience, even if it did give them a more personal sense of killing human beings, made them any less bloody.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal -- Meant to get back to you earlier, but my system crashed mid-post both times I tried to respond.

Hey PD,

I wonder if you would be slamming CBS if what it were claiming were complimentary to Bush?

I wonder, too, in the sense that none of us knows for certain how we would reveal our character in a hypothetical situation. If, say, I responded to growing evidence that the documents were forged by denouncing as partisans the people who pointed this out, that would reveal a character defect, and I'd like to think I was above that kind of thing. As you may have noticed, I did point out that I think the Swift Boat guys overreached with a couple of their criticisms (although they've been dead-on with others, which is why the Kerry camp can't get away with their attempt at a blanket denunciation of their whole argument).

Given CBS's liberal slant, I think the odds of its behaving equally pathetically with a story that favored Bush is pretty much nil. I mean, can you imagine CBS accepting purportedly incriminating documents about John Kerry offered to them by Rush Limbaugh, giving them only a cursory review and disregarding great yawning gaps in the documents' chain of custody? Bill Burkett, from whom CBS got the documents, is at least as partisan as Rush, not to mention mentally unstable. (Not just whistling Dixie; he's had two nervous breakdowns.)

The point, though, is not whether I'd respond as pathetically as Rather and the Democrats who defended him if my ox were getting fed instead of gored. The point is that Rather & Co. did behave pathetically. If a man is accused of betraying his wife, it does him no good to protest that his accuser might also have done so in a hypothetical circumstance -- like, say, his being set upon while half-drunk by the oiled-and-ready Swedish Bikini Team.

CBS wanted the memos to be true, so it accepted them with virtually no scrutiny. You can do that kind of thing in religion (see William James' idea of the "Will to Believe") but when a question is susceptible of being answered with the application of rational scrutiny of the evidence, the decision has to be based on the evidence, not on the hope.

[john doe]

Originally posted by Traci+Sep 21 2004, 06:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traci @ Sep 21 2004, 06:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Sep 21 2004, 12:40 PM

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt presided, respectively, over the two bloodiest wars in American history.  Neither of them ever saw combat.

<span style=\'font-family:Courier\'>Perhaps those conflicts might have been less bloody if they had had a more personal sense of killing other human beings.

Trying to justify Kerry's (note the correct spelling Cal ) actions are we? Just because Kerry allegedly shot a boy in the back, doesn't mean he will be a better wartime president.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 21 2004, 11:40 AM

Seth -- Sorry, pal, that's not the way things are done in a democracy. We talk about anything we bloody well please, and while you have a unique perspective by reason of your service, and deserve our thanks, you don't get the field to yourself in debating any question, whether it involves war or peace.

We don't restrict discussion of the law to lawyers, or of literature to published authors. Since you've (apparently) seen combat for yourself, you can give us your perspective, which we probably ought to give extra weight -- but that's as far as it goes.

Leaving discussion of war to the warriors is something out of a Heinlein novel, not a republic. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt presided, respectively, over the two bloodiest wars in American history. Neither of them ever saw combat.

You are right and the way I stated what I did made it appear as though I don't believe in democracy. What I meant to illistrate is my disdane for people who have never served that judge those who have and come to conclusions without any idea of what they are talking about.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Traci@Sep 21 2004, 05:24 PM

Perhaps those conflicts might have been less bloody if they had had a more personal sense of killing other human beings.

Do you feel that a US president would enter a war without considering the loss of life? Of course in a perfect world there would be no war because we would all share the same ideals. What would our world be like though if we hadn't fought the Civil war and let the South secede and keep their slaves? If we hadn't entered WWII, well... you know what I mean. It's the soldiers who have to carry the burden of killing other human beings and I'm sure it weighs heavy on any unfortunate wartime president.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 21 2004, 06:29 PM

Umm . . . right.

I doubt Hitler and Tojo would have seen the error of their ways and lain down with lambs if only FDR had had some combat experience to teach him sensitivity.

And I sort of doubt that those two guys' military experience, even if it did give them a more personal sense of killing human beings, made them any less bloody.

Ummm, right you are. Your doubts are duly noted. I doubt I can put much credence in them, but they are noted.

[Dravin]

If we hadn't entered WWII, well...

Russia would have ended up with more than Eastern Germany, the Cold War as we know it would have been drastically different. If one goes as far as to say we didn't help England at all in such a situation, it's possible they would have signed a peace treaty with Hitler, which would have left the eastern front not quite so sure of Russian victory.

On the Japan side, if we had say immediately made a treaty with Japan saying we'd stop embargoes if they'd leave Hawaii and the Continental US alone then China would have been hating life, Australia may have as well, it would definitely be a different world.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Traci+Sep 22 2004, 10:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traci @ Sep 22 2004, 10:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Sep 21 2004, 06:29 PM

Umm . . . right.

I doubt Hitler and Tojo would have seen the error of their ways and lain down with lambs if only FDR had had some combat experience to teach him sensitivity.

And I sort of doubt that those two guys' military experience, even if it did give them a more personal sense of killing human beings, made them any less bloody.

Ummm, right you are. Your doubts are duly noted. I doubt I can put much credence in them, but they are noted.

Nice substantive response.

Are you seriously arguing that Hitler and Tojo would have been less bloody-minded if they'd been military veterans?

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 22 2004, 11:21 AM

Nice substantive response.

Umm, right, thank you.

Are you seriously arguing that Hitler and Tojo would have been less bloody-minded if they'd been military veterans?

I don't know, am I? I am seriously arguing the point that it's possible. Don't YOU think it might be possible?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Don't YOU think it might be possible? [i.e., that Hitler and Tojo would have been less bloody-minded if they had been military veterans]

No. It would not have been possible at all. Because they both WERE military veterans, and had both seen combat.

Didn't seem to help much.

Rulers with military experience are no more likely to be pacifists than "chickenhawks." If anything, they are more warlike. The American experience has been a little different, probably mostly due to the luck of the draw with respect to who happened to be in the White House when wars broke out.

It's always a good idea, before getting to passionately engaged in an argument, to make sure of your facts so you don't get cut off at the knees.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 22 2004, 04:52 PM

It's always a good idea, before getting to passionately engaged in an argument, to make sure of your facts so you don't get cut off at the knees.

I seem passionate to you? Hmmm, right. You do have a phenomenal imagination. I think you probably could believe it possible that a leader who has experienced killing another human being might be less inclined to escalate a war for political gain.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 22 2004, 04:52 PM

Don't YOU think it might be possible? [i.e., that Hitler and Tojo would have been less bloody-minded if they had been military veterans]

No. It would not have been possible at all. Because they both WERE military veterans, and had both seen combat.

Didn't seem to help much.

Good point!

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 06:30 PM

Good point!

And since you are obviously in the PD/pro-Bush camp, I'm certain he will find your response highly substantive. Bad point?

[Outshined]

Your argument was that had Hitler or Tojo been combat veterans they would have been less prone to such bloodthirsty actions.

He pointed out that they were veterans, which made your argument moot. I understand the "sour grapes" response.

[Outshined]

Hey, I'm in the PD camp!

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 06:41 PM

Your argument was that had Hitler or Tojo been combat veterans they would have been less prone to such bloodthirsty actions.

No, his argument entailed those specifics. My point was general in nature. I'm sorry, but I must have missed the sour grapes part. Good on you for being so ultra-observant though.

[Outshined]

He quite deftly demonstrated the glaring flaw in your theory. The "sour grapes" part was your adolescent response.

[Guest Traci]

Thank you for reminding me that people WILL believe what they WANT to believe.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Traci@Sep 23 2004, 05:27 AM

Thank you for reminding me that people WILL believe what they WANT to believe.

Are you kidding? you reminded us!

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 23 2004, 05:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 23 2004, 05:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traci@Sep 23 2004, 05:27 AM

Thank you for reminding me that people WILL believe what they WANT to believe.

Are you kidding? you reminded us!

Oh, golly, you're right. Well, thank you for thanking me and for pointing that out.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 23 2004, 05:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 23 2004, 05:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traci@Sep 23 2004, 05:27 AM

Thank you for reminding me that people WILL believe what they WANT to believe.

Are you kidding? you reminded us!

Oh, BTW, do you also think Jesus was kidding about that turn the other cheek nonsense? Or do you figure that it only applies to fellow Christians? Is it a pick-and-choose sorta thingy? D'ya suppose our Savior just couldn't understand how terrifying terrorist tend to be?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Traci@Sep 23 2004, 07:43 AM

Oh, BTW, do you also think Jesus was kidding about that turn the other cheek nonsense? Or do you figure that it only applies to fellow Christians? Is it a pick-and-choose sorta thingy? D'ya suppose our Savior just couldn't understand how terrifying terrorist tend to be?

And what does that have to do with military experience and violent tendencies?