RE: An Open Letter To The Hollywood Bunch from Charlie Daniels

[SactoCampers]

 Ernhrts3n8

All I am saying is that when we are in war times I do not think it is right to bash the leader of our country.

 I agree. However, I think it s pefectly okay to disagree publicly with his policy. The line between bashing and disagreeing is subjective.  Michael Moore s speech and Natalie Maines  comments were in poor taste. Then again, so is Charlie Daniels  letter.
 
 

I am sure that service men and women that hear this take it to heart.  I may be wrong, but this is just my opinion.  I totally believe in freedom of speech, but I guess that I am just trying to show our troops and our leader that we are there for them as a nation during war times.

 I don t think you have much to worry about with 70% public approval.
 
 

Unfortunately, many of these peace demonstrations do turn violent, so I cannot understand their logic either.

 I don t see what a violent protest accomplishes either. But far more protest in the US (the focus of my argument) are peaceful than violent.
 
 

I am not trying to dictate when you can and cannot disagree with our leader, I just think in my opinion that during war time it is not the time to do it.

 I respect your sentiment, but I believe the implications of this statement are profound.
 
 

I guess we can agree to disagree.

 Looking back at your post, I only see one disagreement. We re closer than you think...and most people probably are...they just don t know it and most people are incapable of talking about it without trying to force their opinion on others. Nice to know we can here.
 
 

[YellowXterra]

 4Sharps2Camp
Charlie Daniels He Da Man ! ! !

[tahoecampers]

 4Sharps2Camp
Sactocampers,
 
 Thank you for putting things in perspective.

[Ernhrts3n8]

 4Sharps2Camp
All I can say is that everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Mine will not be changing on this issue.  That is the last that I will comment on this post.  God Bless our troops.  Please come home safely and soon.  The service men and women of this country have my undying gratitude!

[Acts 2:38 girl]

 4Sharps2Camp

However, I think it s pefectly okay to disagree publicly with his policy. The line between bashing and disagreeing is subjective. Michael Moore s speech and Natalie Maines  comments were in poor taste. Then again, so is Charlie Daniels  letter.  

 IMHO - I think the problem most of us (who don t like the president publicly put down) is that as we go around with our bumper stickers that say, " United we Stand" , and these are not just for our morale, but to show the world we are united.  This is not to say if you disagree with the policy, you are not united.  As Toni said, " One can love this country, even while not agreeing with the current events that are happening.  This is very true!  To me, I can realate it as in our family.  If in our family we have a policy of absolutely NO " Fairly Oddparents"  during TV time.   I am perfectly OK with the boys " voicing thier opionin"  about how they want to watch it, even telling Grandma and Grandpa how we don t let them watch it, etc.  But when it comes down to it and that show comes on the station when I m not in the room, I expect them to get up and come and tell me.  Even if they don t like the fact they can t watch it, we are " united"  for the greater good of this family.  There is a moral standard we want to instill in them.  If they started hollering in the middle of the grocery store about how they couldn t watch the " Fairly Oddparents" , and how injust, unfair, etc. it was and they think we are wrong - well we would have a little " session"  at home with the strap because to disagree with something is fine, but when you publicly disrespect you parents (or who s in charge) it reflects badly on the whole family.  This example can be used towards our president.  We don t have to agree with him, but in repeat public disrespect ( not disagreement!) we are showing the world that we prize our freedom of speech over the unity of our country.  " A house divided among itself cannot stand"   Matthew 12:25.  I certainly agree that we shouldn t blindly follow our leaders and thier opionions.  I certainly didn t during the last two terms with our other president!  I was darn happy for freedom of speech!!  I just feel that there is a fine line between disagree and disrespect - and both Hollywood and Nashville have crossed it.
 
 

Again, regardless of one s personal views, for an argument to be consistent why are we praising Nashville artists and entertainers for voicing their opinion and chastizing Hollywood for doing so?  

  I agree with Ernhrts3n8 when he/she (?) said Nashville is more pro-American - at least publicly and way before the war even started!  I guess I really rely on the media, and they ALWAYS put the worst out first, it s just I haven t seen/heard of a lot of people in Hollywood pro-America in this war.  I m sure they are out there.  Actually, it s not just pro-America, it s pro-troops we need!  That s what I want to hear from all those categories.  We support out troops!!  Good going guys and girls, keep strong, Thank-you for your sacrifice.  You rock!  We are backing you, supporting your loved ones left behind, focus on the objective and come home safe, we love you. THAT S what I want to hear from Nashville and Hollywood and all our citizens.  Wow, sorry to have rambled on.  Since SactoCamper made this known it s a friendly disagreement, I sure don t mind joining in!!  [][]
 

[Ernhrts3n8]

 4Sharps2Camp
I know that I said I wasn t going to say anymore about this topic, but Bravo Acts2:38Girl!  Your example of your house rules with your children was exactly what I am talking about.  It is ok to disagree but not to disrespect.  I was watching the O Reilly Factor last night and Travis Tritt was on the program.  He said that Natalie Maines should be on TV publicly apologizing for her words of disrespect.  He also made a great point, he said how do you think the famlies of these men and women that are over there feel when they hear the President being disrespected?  He stated that the families are under enough stress worrying about their loved ones let alone hearing what Hollywood and the Dixie Chicks have to say.  I am not saying that you have to agree with the President, just show him some respect during war time.  By the way Acts2:38Girl, I am a female.  GOD BLESS THE USA AND OUR TROOPS!

[wiininkwe]

 Ernhrts3n8
Andi, you make some really good points, and I can t help but be reminded by your words that usually I am the one urging respect as the final word to any disagreements we may have on this board.  Unfortunately, while I respect the OFFICE of President of the United States of America, I feel that this is an instance where the man holding the title to the office is, in MHO, a dufus and that his reasoning on the subject of this action is flawed.  And the fact that he has disregarded the wishes of the United Nations just shows that he isn t respectful either.  To me, to be expected to follow blindly into action even when you are not certain that what you are being asked to do is right, is comparable to having a dictator telling you what to do.  Kind of like another country we know?
   I have the utmost respect for the troops in the field, because they have gone where their nation sent them, as warriors.   I know that they will do their duty to the country as they are committed to it.  I will be proud of them, collectively and individually.  If, for some reason I should decide to take an active part in a protest against this war, it will be exactly that.  A protest against the action that is happening.  But it has nothing to do with how I will honor the brave warriors that are taking part in it.
  I am always active in the Veteran s Pow Wow and feast that we hold here every year.   It means a lot to me, and  I feel that it s a great honor to be able to be part of an activity that shows how much we respect the people who fought to keep their people free.   I have plans already to be a part of the next Veteran s Pow Wow and feast in November.    No one can take that feeling away from me, no matter how much we agree to disagree here on this board.  
  I do respect your feelings too, and am very glad that we can discuss these kinds of matters here, and learn from one another.  I also respect the way you project your views, not as a final word on the subject, but as someone willing to take the other persons opinion under consideration.  It makes this thread a very comfortable place to debate the ideas we all have.  Thank you.   I am sitting here with my coffee, actually enjoying this thread, not mad at anyone, just happy that we can express and explain our views.
 T

[Acts 2:38 girl]

 Ernhrts3n8

I feel that this is an instance where the man holding the title to the office is, in MHO, a dufus and that his reasoning on the subject of this action is flawed. And the fact that he  

[] [] [] [] [] [] []
 I don t agree with this Toni, but I m dying laughing here!  And it is good to be able to express our own opinions without any fear of being flamed!  
 now - where s my coffee??!![]

[kathybrj]

 Ernhrts3n8
Sorry, but in my opinion, the flaw in thinking is that we have to wait and wait and wait for those countries that openly trade with a dictator and tyrant, because of their interest in cheaper oil, to decide if it s right to take out a madman that tortures his own people and provides refuge and supplies for the very terrorists that attacked our country on 9/11, as well as many of our foreign embassies and the USS Cole (let s be informed here and not -well-uninformed).
 
 Should we be THAT concerned with how SOME European nations see our reasons? This isn t a high school popularity contest. Obviously their oil interests are more important, to them, than the safety of the free world and the help we have given them in their own struggles against dictators. The word " ally"  means nothing to these countries, over their want for cheaper petroleum. There are many that certainly don t feel we should we have to wait for THEM (European Nations and the UN) to decide on how we should look after our own safety- including over 40 countries that have taken a stance with us in this conflict.
 
 The real dufus and his flunkies did not get into office, thank goodness. I know I feel safer, knowing our commander and chief is looking after our safety on our own soil, as well as our citizens that work and have business abroad.
 
 There s no reason to respect any political body that purposefully tries to block us from protecting our own. Liberation for oppressed people is also part of the very good reason for doing what the commander and chief and his advisors are doing (he didn t decide to do this on his own- no one threatened any opposing members of congress or their families, with torture or death last fall, when the resolution went to a vote last fall- threats are what dictators use).
 
 I do wonder what the outcry would be if we were attacked again, if we hadn t gone in on this action. Would people have then started hurling criticism about why we didn t do something sooner? A country attacked is attacked out of perception of weakness (paper tiger perception). We allowed our image to become one of weakness for too long- eight years+ too long.
 
 There s no pleasing everyone. Our President obviously decided world safety and our safety, is more important than his chances of re-election. It takes courage to do what you feel is right when there are nay-sayers after their own interests, using world political organizations to hide behind.
 
 Hail to the chief and to his troops that protect our freedom.

[jackgoesthepopup]

 Ernhrts3n8
I may get a lot of people mad at me but this is what i feel.
 First of all I do support the President and the troops and i happen to agree with whats going on in Iraq.  On that enough said.
  What really brings my blood to a boil is when people put down other peoples points of veiw. If we are going to support the troops we also have to support what they are fighting for.
  Every man and women who inlisted in any branch of service takes the same oath. It is not a oath to the president or to obey only the parts i want to. In Iraq for instance you have to take a oath to Saddun Hassun
 It states.
 I will defend the Constuition of the United States of Amercia againest all enamies Foreign and domestic.
 When i took the oath to become a police officer my oath stated
 I will protect and enforce  the Constiution of the Untied States of America, The laws of the state of  Missouri and The City of Kimmswick.
 In either of thease oaths does it say anything about just the ones i like.
 Thease Service men and women fighting for our way of life know this.They see it first hand what happens to people who voice opposition to the ruling group of people. If we don t support the rights of free speech for everyone then we are just a bunch of hippocrits.

[Jo Ann]

 4Sharps2Camp
well...the way i look at it....whether you are for the war or not, until said war is over, we need to show support for the troops of all the nations in the coalition...they need to know that we are behind them and that we appreciate the fact that they willingly put themselves in harms way to try and make life a better thing for all of us pros and antis.
 
 i also feel that getting rid of suddam is worth it if only one child s life is made safer and better.

[rednekrubbrduck]

 Ernhrts3n8
Ok...first I want to say I support our troops 100%.  I m just not totally sure yet I m totally behind this war or not.  I would feel better about it if I heard more good news about the economy, and folks being layed off in droves are starting to get their jobs back...and the CEO s who feel that the companies they run/ran are their personal piggy banks, the ones who drove the companies into the ground and walked away with huge bonusses and cashed in their stock options before the stocks dropped, while the employees lost their retirement savings, and others lost their jobs and benifits, were being prosecuted for fraud, or theft, and they money they stole was being given back to the employees.  I just find it odd that as soon as the CEO scandles started coming out...we had to go after Iraq, and the scandles  stories started getting pushed back till you didn t hear about them anymore.
      As far as folks protesting the war...let them.  It just helps show what they are fighting for in th first place...freedom.  Also shows that at least in the good old US of A you can protest against your govenrnment without being thrown into a prision for " re-education" , or sent to a nice pleasant climate like Siberia, or worse.  You may not like someones opinion on things...including the war..but they have that right..and right to voice it.  That s why I m a vet..so folks like my oldest tree hugging sister..and folks that agree with her have the right to say, and demonstrate, against things they disagree with...including the war.  It s their right.  Freedom of Speech means everyone has that right, not just the ones that agree with the President.  I may not agree with someones opinion..but they have the right to voice it and protest.  As long as they don t interfere with my rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and my right to voice my opinion.  Folks may not like what I have to say..but I have the right to say it, just as others have the right to disagree.  What I don t like is the name calling.  The " you don t agree with me so u re a dumbazz"  stuff isn t what I call an intelligent debate.  How do you prove your point that way?  Sorry this is so long winded..but had to get it out.

[SactoCampers]

 Ernhrts3n8

countries that openly trade with a dictator and tyrant, because of their interest in cheaper oil,

 Playing devil s advocate here, I m not sure this argument holds up to closer scrutiny. The nations who have lucrative oil contracts with Iraq (France and Russia) most likely could have used that as a bargaining chip with the US at the early stages of diplomacy. That is, in private, they could have negotiated with the US for similar, or at least favorable oil contracts in return for their support for the war compared to what they will receive after it (if any). However, as soon as the US takes control of Iraq, I m speculating (and I could be wrong) that France s and Russia s oil contracts will be invalidated and rights to those reserves will be granted to US companies. So if oil was the motive for France and Russia s dissent, it was in their interest to negotiate early on with the US in return for their support. This suggests to me that perhaps their motive for dissenting from the war is not about oil. If the US is going in for purely altruistic reasons (liberating Iraq, WMD, etc.), then France and Russia s previous oil contracts would be honored, despite their dissent. But I don t think that will happen.
 
 So if we are going to accuse other countries of dissenting from the war due to their interest in oil, then we, by far the largest consumer of it, should not ignore the political reality that we are invading a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world and that we stand to gain from it.

[kathybrj]

 SactoCampers

ORIGINAL:  SactoCampers
 This suggests to me that perhaps their motive for dissenting from the war is not about oil.

 What will happen with oil contracts remains to be seen, as do many issues that will present themselves. So yes, we could all be wrong in speculations, because they are just that- speculation. But, from the information I have looked into, it still appears to me that France, Germany and Russia were acting like scared children hiding matches in their pockets. I truly do not believe any of those countries didn t want us to go to Iraq out of any sense of " right and wrong"  of the situation. I sincerely believe they are protecting their own interests, whether it be oil or money for helping Iraq obtain components for weapons. (William Sapphire wrote an interesting piece on this on March 20th in the NY Times- French Connection II- it was quite interesting what info he was able to dig up in less than two weeks).
 
 The lucrative oil contracts coercion- yes they could attempted to use that, if they thought it would have done any good. But there is no good bargaining chip if they are or were supplying Iraq with weapons components. One way or the other, our " allies"  certainly had compelling reasons for not supporting us and, again, I truly don t believe it has anything to do with the " right and wrong"  of the argument. Have any of the dissenting countries come right out and listed their opposition to this war? Iraq s failure to comply with resolution 1441 should have been enough for their support. Something smells like bad brie, to me.
 
 I also don t think disarming a tyrant from WMD is wrong. It is for the protection of our country and I m all for that. " Allies"  that choose to try and stand in the way of us protecting ourselves are not allies and they have proven that, with no question.
 
 As far as the U.S. and any other coalition countries gaining from Iraq s oil supplies- that also remains to be seen. But I will continue to stand behind my accusation of our " allies" - whether their interests are for oil or for money to provide components for weapons. I believe there s much more, than has already been revealed, that will show the involvement of these countries with Iraq in less-than-favorable dealings.
 
 Yes, we should gain from going into Iraq- we should gain a feeling of security in ridding the world of this madman and those that would support him.

[Ernhrts3n8]

 Ernhrts3n8
Well said Kathy.