I'm never sure quite how long one should carry on an argument in someone else's comments box. So I thought I would conclude it here.
Kim wrote:
everyone needs to put their feelings aside and support our boys: they are out there prepared to die for your freedom.
I wrote:
Is that an order, Kim? How, exactly, will 'our boys' protect our freedoms by bombing Baghdad.Would that include the freedom of free speech and free thought. Or 'feelings' as you call them.
Can I suggest you start exercising the freedom of thought - rather than parroting some trite expression from a tabloid newspaper?
Could you also consider how many people with a military background are opposed to the war? And ponder and reflect why.
Kim responded:
i do not read tabloids
i do have free thought: i believe the war is the right thing to do
i am not of a military background
when i have observed anti-war protests, the only people there have been kids skiving off school, hippies and people with an iq too low to actually understand why we need to go to war.
please do not make assumptions about me when u dont even know me: would u have the guts to go and fight for your country?
Three more people with differing views argued their case. Then Kim said
...also, in commenting on the kids and hippies, it was merely an objective observation. again, dont insult my intelligence when you dont even know who i am.
blair has different objectives for this war than bush. i dont support america but i do support britain.
I think I decided not to respond, because 26 Spicy Brains are quite a lot. So, here is my response:
Our boys is a very tabloid expression. Perhaps you don't read tabloids, but you certainly don't read real newspapers and magazines, either, or you would know what a cliché 'our boys' is. Especially when quite a few of them are 'our girls'. You are completely entitled to your views; so am I, and please don't tell me what to think. I didn't say you were of a military background - I merely alluded that quite a number of military types are opposed to the war, and are able to deal with the non-contradiction of also hoping that casualties are zero (or as close to as possible). You can't have observed any protests, even on the TV, to notice that the protesters were extraordinarily diverse. Into which of the categories does Miss Dynamite fit? Or a middle-aged, middle-class former Tory Parliamentary candidate of my acquaintance? Not to mention a good number of bloggers? You haven't actually explained why we need to go to war. Or how bombing Baghdad actually protects our freedoms.
I made no assumptions about you. If you believe that Blair has different objectives - which is not wholly inaccurate - why don't you question why he is happy to go along with George Bush. How can you say you support Britain but not America? In this specific circumstance they are indivisible. It's not really like supporting your nation at football, where blind devotion is customary. Asking me whether I would have the guts to go and fight for my country is a clever question. I've never had to make that choice and I doubt they would have me. I suspect that if it were necessary for me to fight for my country I would do so, but not out of guts, out of sheer necessity and the survival instant. Meanwhile, who exactly is fighting for this country right now? With the greatest respect, it is not the British forces. they're fighting for Iraq, which is quite a different country altogether. I am not aware of any occasion when Iraq has ever attacked Britain, nor do I believe that they have the capability of so doing. The previous Gulf War was a fight for Kuwait; the Falklands was arguably a fight for our country, or, at least for what was then known as a Dependent Territory, and now an Overseas territory. I will fully admit I was almost totally wrong to oppose that - although I still think Maggie gloried in slaughter, and I still believe it was wrong to torpedo the Belgrano.
The observation on kids and hippies was a bit more subjective than objective, I would say. Those word things - difficult, aren't they? No, I don't know you, and I think it would be wrong to comment on your intelligence - merely your use of words. And your obvious inability to answer the points put to you.
That makes me feel better!
